Noahs Ark

[McBell]

You say "We have evidence of other civilizations in existence before, during and after the flood". What evidence? How does one tell when a civilization existed?
'Scientific dating?' Radioucarbon dating? This dating system measures the rate of decay of radioactive carbon from the point of death of the organism. “Once an organism dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon dioxide from its environment, and the proportion of the isotope falls off over time as it undergoes radioactive decay,” states Science and Technology Illustrated.

However, there are severe problems with the system. First, when the fossil is considered to be about 50,000 years old, its level of radioactivity has fallen so low that it can be detected only with great difficulty. Second, even in more recent specimens, this level has fallen so low that it is still extremely difficult to measure accurately. Third, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past.
So whether they use the radiocarbon method for dating fossils or other methods, such as employing radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, scientists are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time. Thus, professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook observes: “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.” That would especially be so when we consider that the Flood of Noah’s day over 4,300 years ago brought enormous changes in the atmosphere and on earth.
Dartmouth College geologists Charles Officer and Charles Drake further add doubt to the accuracy of radioactive dating. They state: “We conclude that iridium and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously . . . but rather that there was an intense and variable influx of these constituents during a relatively short geologic time interval on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 years.” They argue that the breakup and movement of the continents disrupted the entire globe, causing volcanic eruptions, blocking sunlight and fouling the atmosphere. Certainly, such disruptive events could change radioactivity levels, thus distorting results from modern-day radioactive clocks.
In other words, the clocks hands have been moved.​

You do realize that this is the year 2010, right?
Don't you think you should, at the very least, update your arguments?

 

[Autodidact]

You say "We have evidence of other civilizations in existence before, during and after the flood". What evidence? How does one tell when a civilization existed? [/qutoe] The answer would take volumes. We know by archeological evidence, such as pottery and architecture, by the written records of the civilizations themselves, by the reports of others, and just many, many, ways.

'Scientific dating?' Radioucarbon dating? This dating system measures the rate of decay of radioactive carbon from the point of death of the organism. “Once an organism dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon dioxide from its environment, and the proportion of the isotope falls off over time as it undergoes radioactive decay,” states Science and Technology Illustrated.

However, there are severe problems with the system. First, when the fossil is considered to be about 50,000 years old, its level of radioactivity has fallen so low that it can be detected only with great difficulty.​

Duh, that's why we don't use radio carbon dating beyond 50,000 years. However, what we're talking about is all more recent than that.

Second, even in more recent specimens, this level has fallen so low that it is still extremely difficult to measure accurately.

Baloney.

Third, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past.

There is no reason to suppose it has ever changed. It's kind of like the speed of light--remains constant.

So whether they use the radiocarbon method for dating fossils or other methods, such as employing radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, scientists are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time.​

That's garbage.

Thus, professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook observes: “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.” That would especially be so when we consider that the Flood of Noah’s day over 4,300 years ago brought enormous changes in the atmosphere and on earth.

Why would you ask a professor of metallurgy, of all things?

Dartmouth College geologists Charles Officer and Charles Drake further add doubt to the accuracy of radioactive dating. They state: “We conclude that iridium and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously . . . but rather that there was an intense and variable influx of these constituents during a relatively short geologic time interval on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 years.” They argue that the breakup and movement of the continents disrupted the entire globe, causing volcanic eruptions, blocking sunlight and fouling the atmosphere. Certainly, such disruptive events could change radioactivity levels, thus distorting results from modern-day radioactive clocks.
In other words, the clocks hands have been moved.​

Since we know you know nothing of the subject, I have two questions for you:
1. Where are you stealing from?
2. Where are you quote-mining from?

 

[challupa]

You say "We have evidence of other civilizations in existence before, during and after the flood". What evidence? How does one tell when a civilization existed?
'Scientific dating?' Radioucarbon dating? This dating system measures the rate of decay of radioactive carbon from the point of death of the organism. “Once an organism dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon dioxide from its environment, and the proportion of the isotope falls off over time as it undergoes radioactive decay,” states Science and Technology Illustrated.

However, there are severe problems with the system. First, when the fossil is considered to be about 50,000 years old, its level of radioactivity has fallen so low that it can be detected only with great difficulty. Second, even in more recent specimens, this level has fallen so low that it is still extremely difficult to measure accurately. Third, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past.
So whether they use the radiocarbon method for dating fossils or other methods, such as employing radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, scientists are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time. Thus, professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook observes: “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.” That would especially be so when we consider that the Flood of Noah’s day over 4,300 years ago brought enormous changes in the atmosphere and on earth.
Dartmouth College geologists Charles Officer and Charles Drake further add doubt to the accuracy of radioactive dating. They state: “We conclude that iridium and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously . . . but rather that there was an intense and variable influx of these constituents during a relatively short geologic time interval on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 years.” They argue that the breakup and movement of the continents disrupted the entire globe, causing volcanic eruptions, blocking sunlight and fouling the atmosphere. Certainly, such disruptive events could change radioactivity levels, thus distorting results from modern-day radioactive clocks.
In other words, the clocks hands have been moved.​

Yes and the earth is flat too! Here's proof:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Now if you believe that, I have more I can sell ya!:slap:

 

[xkatz]

Humanity and other animals survived by riding giant tacos obviously.

If you look at the shape, it is perfect for staying a float with it's hard, corn made shell. Also it served as sustenance for man and animals (since it provides both veggies and meat), making them the ultimate Noahs' Arks.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., Google has shed light:

Melvin A. Cook:
Another excellent reference that illustrates the impossible reconciliation between Mormonism and science is "Science and Mormonism" by Melvin A. Cook and M. Garfield Cook, Printed by Deseret News Press (owned by the Mormon church). Copyright 1967 (this is likely to be a difficult book to find, I personally prize my copy and don't loan it out. It was given to our family by my son's Mormon seminary teacher in an effort to convince my son of the evils of evolution).
The book's main objective is to show that modern science is wrong about a host of things, and that Mormonism's blend of 19th century popular science and mythology is really the way things are.
from here
(btw, see the way I indicated that I was quoting and gave the source? That's the proper way to use other people's work.)
Apprently Dr. Cook was a chemist and published a few creationist screeds in the 60's. Do you suppose science has made any progress since then?

As for Charles Officer, co-author of Tales of the Earth, he certainly does not dispute radiometric dating, and it is slander to imply that he does. Same for Professor Drake, expert on dinosaur extinction.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thanks everyone for doing that research and responding to him before I did. Xkatz..Thanks. I needed that...that was so frackin' funny.....

 

[Charity]

This Post has been afloat longer than the supposed original......

I'll bet Ole Noah could have learned a lot by reading this thread......

 

[Valjean]

Flood, fire and vulcanism don't effect radioactive decay, and no scientist would waste time and money carbon-dating a contaminated or too old specimen. There are plenty of other dating methods available.

 

[footprints]

He's simply asking the question. He never said he believed it. This is actually something creationist believe...that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. So..his question is a valid one.

Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together? - Answers in Genesis
"Biblical creationists believe that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time because God, a perfect eyewitness to history, said that He created man and land animals on Day 6 (Genesis 1:24–31). Dinosaurs are land animals, so logically they were created on Day 6."

Unfortunately the evidence disagrees with their assertions.



Well, he's correct. There's no reference in that scroll in regards to dinosaurs.

Hi Penguin, I am aware of what the post was eluding to. Now I am asking for some facts to back up this imaginary perception of history. I certainly wouldn't want people making rational judgements based on irrational knowledge.

Creationism covers such a wide scope of beliefs it isn't funny. Let us take the 5,000 odd year belief to start off with, this takes us right out of the dinosaur era.

To completely discount man and dinosaurs coexisting, would take a whole heap of Blind Faith, given our current knowledge. Certainly the evidence to date suggests that they never coexisted, albeit it is only suggestion at this point in time.

As for the dinosaur all becoming extinct nearly instantaneously, personally I do not buy into that theory, albeit I can understand the devastation a meteor impact would have, and what subsequent damage to species population a dramatic climate change would have.

There may be no exact reference in the scroll as you put it, does there need to be? Before we can even begin to rationalise a flood we must first understand when this flood was (if it ever occured), exactly where it was and whether or not the reference to a flood is perception based (the whole known world would have been the whole world to ancient people), a metaphor, a simile, or any other thing which the human brain can reconcile.

Evidence is now emerging that the world quite possibly went through a dramatic climate change around 5,200 years ago. During such dramatic climate changes it is very much accepted that life dimishes dramatically. This story could even relate to then.

 

[footprints]

What difference does it make to Auto since it was not her that made the claim? It was URAVIP2ME that came up with the date. A quick hop around the web...others are in agreement on a "time frame". Auto is correct....We have evidence of other civilizations in existence before, during and after the flood...so the idea of a WWF is ludicrous. Not to mention, but I will, the geological evidence contradicts such an event happening in the past 10,000 years.

In order to combat an argument point, a person must have reasonable argument to combat it with. Else they are just debating over points of their own imagination.

Auto needs to get all known facts.

 

[footprints]

I don't allege there was a flood. I'm responding to another poster who alleges there was, so I suggest you ask him.

Auto you are trying to contradict another poster, so either you have the facts or you are just speaking hot air. If you have the facts I would like to hear them.

 

[darkendless]

In order to combat an argument point, a person must have reasonable argument to combat it with. Else they are just debating over points of their own imagination.

Auto needs to get all known facts.

Soil profiles don't lie.

I'm not explaining why there wasn't a world wide flood again. I'm sick to death of prewsenting the same evidence for this rediculous debate. Some people just don't learn.

 

[footprints]

Soil profiles don't lie.

I'm not explaining why there wasn't a world wide flood again. I'm sick to death of prewsenting the same evidence for this rediculous debate. Some people just don't learn.

You would be right some people just don't learn. You would appear to be one.

Try taking all facts and knowledge into your calculations, perhaps things may become clearer to you and not bogged down in the mud.

 

[darkendless]

You would be right some people just don't learn. You would appear to be one.

Try taking all facts and knowledge into your calculations, perhaps things may become clearer to you and not bogged down in the mud.

Nice little come back. Seems as though you have nothing better to say.

Basics: If there were a world wide flood there would be the same (or at least similar) disparity in soil profiles taken from different places around the world given that a few thousand megatons of water was sitting above it and we havn't seen anything like it since. Soil would also be denser. Water soaking into the pores of the soil causes a higher density in the unsaturated soil owing to a higher weight above it. Voids would collapse and the rate of seepage would slow down causing mass veining on deep rocks (usually metamorphic in nature). This would be preserved given that no floods have even come close since then. If you want to prove me wrong, i suggest looking into deep soil profiling. The company i work for at the moment Morrison Geotechnics does them.


There are some very basic facts for people like you who obviously don't know a thing about geotechnics.

It doesn't take a genius champ. Im a 3rd year at uni and i can understand whats going on.

 

[footprints]

Nice little come back. Seems as though you have nothing better to say.

Basics: If there were a world wide flood there would be the same (or at least similar) disparity in soil profiles taken from different places around the world given that a few thousand megatons of water was sitting above it and we havn't seen anything like it since. Soil would also be denser. Water soaking into the pores of the soil causes a higher density in the unsaturated soil owing to a higher weight above it. Voids would collapse and the rate of seepage would slow down causing mass veining on deep rocks (usually metamorphic in nature). This would be preserved given that no floods have even come close since then. If you want to prove me wrong, i suggest looking into deep soil profiling. The company i work for at the moment Morrison Geotechnics does them.


There are some very basic facts for people like you who obviously don't know a thing about geotechnics.

It doesn't take a genius champ. Im a 3rd year at uni and i can understand whats going on.

When human nature (characteristics) rely on soil samples, I will get in touch with you. Until then I would honestly suggest you take all known knowledge into consideration and not just what you find in soil analysis. It seems to be muddying up your waters and making things all merky for you.

 

[darkendless]

When human nature (characteristics) rely on soil samples, I will get in touch with you. Until then I would honestly suggest you take all known knowledge into consideration and not just what you find in soil analysis. It seems to be muddying up your waters and making things all merky for you.

It works every time i apply it at work with compaction testing. I would think it would apply universally.

 

[footprints]

It works every time i apply it at work with compaction testing. I would think it would apply universally.

I do not doubt it darkendless, as you should not doubt there are many other fields of science to consider when talking about the Noahs Ark scenario.

Take all facts in, not just the facts you want to include, or only the facts which you know.

 

[darkendless]

I do not doubt it darkendless, as you should not doubt there are many other fields of science to consider when talking about the Noahs Ark scenario.

Take all facts in, not just the facts you want to include, or only the facts which you know.

The way i see it, is if the story is true, it must be true in all manners, not just selected areas.

I will only speak about a single field, because i don't like speaking in areas of which i am not well experienced in.

The only way to verify the story is to change the details to suit. Hardly the right way to go about it.

 

[footprints]

The way i see it, is if the story is true, it must be true in all manners, not just selected areas.

I will only speak about a single field, because i don't like speaking in areas of which i am not well experienced in.

The only way to verify the story is to change the details to suit. Hardly the right way to go about it.

An understanding of other fields of science will show you there is more than one way a world flood can be interpreted, and be 100% correct.

What you deem is the right way, isn't necessarily the right way, this is just what your belief tells you, which has a probability of being incorrect or correct.

 

[darkendless]

An understanding of other fields of science will show you there is more than one way a world flood can be interpreted, and be 100% correct.

What you deem is the right way, isn't necessarily the right way, this is just what your belief tells you, which has a probability of being incorrect or correct.

Interpreted? You're stepping around a factual basis here. Interpretation to me appears to be a case of "i know there is something wrong here so ill change the story to make the facts fit."

I cannot see how what i do every day is a belief? Theres nothing to believe.

Please explain.