The flood in Genesis

[painted wolf]

You canna' break the laws of Physics...

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

You are assuming the huge mountains existing today were as tall as in Noah's day. As mentioned in previous posts, some scientists say there is evidence this was not the case.

Since “scientists say” would clearly not be good enough for you, I don’t think we should allow double standards, so kindly enlighten us as to what this ‘evidence’ is and how it shows the landscape was so drastically different 4,000 years ago.

The global deluge could itself cause huge changes to the Earth, completely reshaping the earth's surface. No one alive today can say with certainty what the pre-flood world landscape was.

Bold claim. Time for you to show how mountains have been moved.

Time for some maths on the global flood.
Total amount of water on the earth is about 1,400,000,000 km3

So we need to cover the earth with around 9 km of water to cover the highest mountains.

How much extra water do we need? The formula is:
¾π(6,366)3- ¾π(6,357)3 = 2,574,506,755 km3

So you need nearly triple the amount of water on the earth for a global flood? I think we have a problem here.

 

[Arlanbb]

You are assuming the huge mountains existing today were as tall as in Noah's day.
As mentioned in previous posts, some scientists say there is evidence this was not the case. The global deluge could itself cause huge changes to the Earth, completely reshaping the earth's surface. No one alive today can say with certainty what the pre-flood world landscape was.

rusra02 ~ You talk about pre-flood landscape. I asked you in post #140 when did the biblical deluge happen? So far you have not given us a date for this big flood you are talking about. Did it happen 2000 years ago or 5000 years ago??? If you can't give anyone a date for when it happen then how do you know it really happen???

 

[rusra02]

rusra02 ~ You talk about pre-flood landscape. I asked you in post #140 when did the biblical deluge happen? So far you have not given us a date for this big flood you are talking about. Did it happen 2000 years ago or 5000 years ago??? If you can't give anyone a date for when it happen then how do you know it really happen???

Bible chronology points to 2370 BCE as the year the flood occurred.

 

[rusra02]

Since “scientists say” would clearly not be good enough for you, I don’t think we should allow double standards, so kindly enlighten us as to what this ‘evidence’ is and how it shows the landscape was so drastically different 4,000 years ago.

Bold claim. Time for you to show how mountains have been moved.

Time for some maths on the global flood.
Total amount of water on the earth is about 1,400,000,000 km3

So we need to cover the earth with around 9 km of water to cover the highest mountains.

How much extra water do we need? The formula is:
¾π(6,366)3- ¾π(6,357)3 = 2,574,506,755 km3

So you need nearly triple the amount of water on the earth for a global flood? I think we have a problem here.

I already gave the quote in a previous post.
Wonders of Nature, edited by Claus Jürgen Frank, 1980, p. 87. -
“Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.”
I also quoted a scripture that describes just such an occurrence.

 

[rusra02]

1. The earth is not a ball of clay.
2. I didn't say it couldn't be shaped; it's shaped all the time. The surface goes down in some places (like the Mariana trench) and up in others (like the Rocky Mountains.) The surface of the earth is dynamic. What does not happen is that the quantity, the volume, suddenly and magically becomes larger or smaller IN TOTAL. The total surface remains the same--surely you see why? No, the evidence does. Well, it's not so much water, as continental drift, but the key point is this: It goes up in one place, and down in another. The planet itself does not shrink or grow. Do you agree?
Your problem is that your view differs from the mainstream, it's that it's wrong.

But of course, not being a Biologist, he wouldn't know, would he? Would you like to review the evidence for The Theory of Evolution (ToE?) You will be amazed. Oh, but he's a notorious liar, didn't you know that?

So basically, you're opposed to science?

No, of course I am not opposed to science. The evidence for the Flood is there to those willing to see it. I have shared some of that evidence in my previous posts.
Again, each person must examine the evidence and decide for themselves what to believe. Jesus said he came to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37) He told the truth about the Flood. That is my belief. I urge all honest hearted ones to examine the evidence for themselves, and not be cowed by other's disbelief. With that, I take my leave of this discussion.

 

[darkendless]

No, of course I am not opposed to science. The evidence for the Flood is there to those willing to see it. I have shared some of that evidence in my previous posts.
Again, each person must examine the evidence and decide for themselves what to believe. Jesus said he came to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37) He told the truth about the Flood. That is my belief. I urge all honest hearted ones to examine the evidence for themselves, and not be cowed by other's disbelief. With that, I take my leave of this discussion.

I didn't. There is no way the earth could sustain its shape under the pressure of that water. Also, are you aware of how much water the clouds would have to hold? Where would that come from?

Geologically, in 2750 BC there was not a a global flood. I know this because in Australia we can't see that. If there was a flood of biblical proportions the soil profile would be dramatically different than it is. About 9 inches from the top, there would be a very dark orange layer, but there is not There would be so much water, that the water would be saturated down to the bed rock. As we all know, soil is porous, so when i dig up the ground why can't i find large voids in the soil profile about 9 inches under the surface? My guess is in outback Australia they'd still be there, or the soil's compaction factor would be tiny from these voids collapsing????

Don't take leave of this discussion because you've run out of pages to paste here. Some of us have studied geology and your pages are laughable at best. Stop ignoring common sense.

 

[darkendless]

The simple experiment with a ball of clay proves you were incorrect in saying the Earth's surface could not be shaped. Your ridicule of me is not proof that you are correct. The great weight of water, and especially water in motion, has the ability to change landscapes dramatically. I don't think too many thinking people would deny this.

Your ridicule is typical of 'scientific' harassment of those whose beliefs differ from what is considered mainstream. And most unfortunate.

An article in The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments: “Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”

The same may be said for those who ridicule others who accept the truthfulness of the Bible's account of the global deluge.

When has the earth been made of clay? Clay has an saturated expansion force of about 500 kN, do you know what kind of problems that would cause of earth every time it rained? Also clay is a plastic material saturated, brittle when dry. So how on earth would we put building into the sky with such unstable and unsuitable soil as a foundation?
You bring ridecule on yourself when you use inappropriate examples that ineffectively represent your example.

Evolutionists have every right to ridecule opposition, because i don't know if you read much, but all opposition to evolution is either biblically charged or naive at best demonstrating minimal understanding of chemistry and/or biology.

If you don't want to be insulted for your posts, be careful what you're posting. If you post garbage, there's always one or more members here who know more than you do about common topics. If you don't understand a topic, its best to learn from those who do rather than jump in with 5 minutes of research and then complain when it is rejected.

 

[Autodidact]

You are assuming the huge mountains existing today were as tall as in Noah's day.
As mentioned in previous posts, some scientists say there is evidence this was not the case.

You are assuming there was a Noah's day. No, there are no scientists who say there is any evidence of this. Why would you care, since you are against science?

The global deluge could itself cause huge changes to the Earth, completely reshaping the earth's surface. No one alive today can say with certainty what the pre-flood world landscape was.

What we can say is that there is no such thing, since there never was any such flood.

 

[Autodidact]

Bible chronology points to 2370 BCE as the year the flood occurred.

That would be during the 6th Egyptian dynasty. The Egyptians kept written records of their history going back much further than this. They never noticed that their entire civilization was destroyed, and that they themselves were under water. How do you account for this?

p.s. Same for China and Egypt.

 

[Autodidact]

I already gave the quote in a previous post.
Wonders of Nature, edited by Claus Jürgen Frank, 1980, p. 87. -
“Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.”
I also quoted a scripture that describes just such an occurrence.

Yes, and where there are now plains, there used to be mountains. The earth moves around, we know that. (although it happens much, much slower than what you're saying.) In fact, we know exactly how fast the continents are moving; we can measure it. But what doesn't happen, has never happened, is that the total surface area of the earth is any less. If you keep reading Mr. Frank (although I don't know why you're enamored of a 25 year old book; science does progress) you will find that he tells you this takes millions--not hundreds--of years. Obviously, if it happened at the rate you're describing, people would notice it. Your house would be in your neighbor's yard.

 

[Autodidact]

No, of course I am not opposed to science.

Oh, your statements gave me the opposite impression. O.K., you accept science. Well, science says the earth is 4.56 billion years old, and there has never been, and could never be, a global flood. Please name me ten geologists who say otherwise.

The evidence for the Flood is there to those willing to see it. I have shared some of that evidence in my previous posts.

Well, none of that was the least bit persuasive.

Again, each person must examine the evidence and decide for themselves what to believe. Jesus said he came to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37) He told the truth about the Flood. That is my belief. I urge all honest hearted ones to examine the evidence for themselves, and not be cowed by other's disbelief. With that, I take my leave of this discussion.

So your opinion is as good as all the world's geologists together?

 

[tumbleweed41]

No, of course I am not opposed to science. The evidence for the Flood is there to those willing to see it. I have shared some of that evidence in my previous posts.
Again, each person must examine the evidence and decide for themselves what to believe. Jesus said he came to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37) He told the truth about the Flood. That is my belief. I urge all honest hearted ones to examine the evidence for themselves, and not be cowed by other's disbelief. With that, I take my leave of this discussion.

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]"...be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers."
--Saint Augustine[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Arlanbb]

Bible chronology points to 2370 BCE as the year the flood occurred.

Hi rusra02 ~ I have in front of me the Book "ANCIENT EGYPT" written by David P Silverman, Curator-in-charge of the Egyptian Section of the Univ. of Pennsylvania Museum. This man has no ax to grind with the bible. He tells what has been found about Egypt.

In 2370 BC which is the end of the 5th Dynasty [2500-2350] Egypt had had 9 kings in Egypt, Unas was King from 2371-2350 BC. The 4th Dynasty ran from 2625-2500BC with 7 Kings and the 6th Dynasty after the 5th ran from 2350-2170BC with at least 6 Kings.

Now my question to you is if the biblical flood happened in 2370BC HOW COME EGYPT HAD MANY KINGS BEFORE THE FLOOD AND MANY KINGS AFTER THAT FLOOD DATE WHEN ALL HUMANS EXCEPT 8 WERE KILLED BY THE BIBLICAL FLOOD IN 2370BC??

According to all history books Egypt was in its greatest time of its life at 2370BC.

There are cities in this world today that have had people inhabiting them CONTENTIOUSLY for over 5000 years old-a few of them: Athens, Greece; Beirut, Lebanon; 5500 years old- Hebron, West bank; 6000 years old-Medinat Al-Fayous, Egypt; Sidon, Lebanon; 6,200 years old- Susa, Iran; Aleppo, and Damascus ,Syria and the oldest is Byblos[Jbeil] in Lebanon 7000 years of people living in the same village without a biblical flood happening to them. How do you explain all these towns having people living in them longer than the biblical flood AND SOME LONGER THEN CREATION??? Please take the time to look these up on Google and prove that what I am telling you is true.

Now Do you have a different date for the biblical flood????

You have a great day

 

[rusra02]

Hi rusra02 ~ I have in front of me the Book "ANCIENT EGYPT" written by David P Silverman, Curator-in-charge of the Egyptian Section of the Univ. of Pennsylvania Museum. This man has no ax to grind with the bible. He tells what has been found about Egypt.

In 2370 BC which is the end of the 5th Dynasty [2500-2350] Egypt had had 9 kings in Egypt, Unas was King from 2371-2350 BC. The 4th Dynasty ran from 2625-2500BC with 7 Kings and the 6th Dynasty after the 5th ran from 2350-2170BC with at least 6 Kings.

Now my question to you is if the biblical flood happened in 2370BC HOW COME EGYPT HAD MANY KINGS BEFORE THE FLOOD AND MANY KINGS AFTER THAT FLOOD DATE WHEN ALL HUMANS EXCEPT 8 WERE KILLED BY THE BIBLICAL FLOOD IN 2370BC??

According to all history books Egypt was in its greatest time of its life at 2370BC.

There are cities in this world today that have had people inhabiting them CONTENTIOUSLY for over 5000 years old-a few of them: Athens, Greece; Beirut, Lebanon; 5500 years old- Hebron, West bank; 6000 years old-Medinat Al-Fayous, Egypt; Sidon, Lebanon; 6,200 years old- Susa, Iran; Aleppo, and Damascus ,Syria and the oldest is Byblos[Jbeil] in Lebanon 7000 years of people living in the same village without a biblical flood happening to them. How do you explain all these towns having people living in them longer than the biblical flood AND SOME LONGER THEN CREATION??? Please take the time to look these up on Google and prove that what I am telling you is true.

Now Do you have a different date for the biblical flood????

You have a great day

Eleven years ago, an artistic South African grandmother, Joan Ahrens, produced some fine paintings using rocks as her canvases, imitating traditional Bushman art. Later, one of her painted rocks was picked up in the veld near her former home in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Eventually it got into the hands of the curator of the city’s museum. Unaware of the origin of this rock art, the curator had it dated in England by the Oxford University radio carbon accelerator unit. Experts estimated that the painting was 1,200 years old! Why such an embarrassing error? “It has since been established,” according to a report in South Africa’s Sunday Times, “that the oil paint used by Mrs Ahrens contained natural oils which contained carbon—the only substance dated by Oxford.”
Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that “man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”
Incidentally, any change in radiation would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 to such an extent as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the Flood.
Which begs the question, where did the dates come from? And how reliable are they?
Mrs. Ahrens experience is one of many such...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Eleven years ago, an artistic South African grandmother, Joan Ahrens, produced some fine paintings using rocks as her canvases, imitating traditional Bushman art. Later, one of her painted rocks was picked up in the veld near her former home in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Eventually it got into the hands of the curator of the city’s museum. Unaware of the origin of this rock art, the curator had it dated in England by the Oxford University radio carbon accelerator unit. Experts estimated that the painting was 1,200 years old! Why such an embarrassing error? “It has since been established,” according to a report in South Africa’s Sunday Times, “that the oil paint used by Mrs Ahrens contained natural oils which contained carbon—the only substance dated by Oxford.”
PopularScience (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” ...

One man's error does not validate another man's willful ignorance, and cherry-picking the lunatic fringe of science graduates for support suggests nothing short of intellectual desperation.

 

[Autodidact]

Eleven years ago, an artistic South African grandmother, Joan Ahrens, produced some fine paintings using rocks as her canvases, imitating traditional Bushman art. Later, one of her painted rocks was picked up in the veld near her former home in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Eventually it got into the hands of the curator of the city’s museum. Unaware of the origin of this rock art, the curator had it dated in England by the Oxford University radio carbon accelerator unit. Experts estimated that the painting was 1,200 years old! Why such an embarrassing error? “It has since been established,” according to a report in South Africa’s Sunday Times, “that the oil paint used by Mrs Ahrens contained natural oils which contained carbon—the only substance dated by Oxford.”
Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that “man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”
Incidentally, any change in radiation would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 to such an extent as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the Flood.
Which begs the question, where did the dates come from? And how reliable are they?
Mrs. Ahrens experience is one of many such...

What creationist liars are you plagiarizing, rusra? Give us the cite.

So in addition to rejecting all of Geology then, you also reject most of physics? Still trying to portray yourself as pro-science?

Did you notice that Arlann did not mention radiometric dating which, however, is accurate and works? The Egyptians kept written records. So when do you think the Egyptian kings of the 6th dynasty ruled, and on what do you base that opinion?

 

[tumbleweed41]

.
Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that “man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”

Robert Gentry, an ultra-religious supporter of Creation (pseudo)Science, has been repeatedly discredited by his peers. Including geologist Brent Dalrymple, Thomas A. Baillieul, and John Brawley. In response to Gentry's claims, Dalrymple wrote, "As far as I am concerned, Gentry's challenge is silly. … He has proposed an absurd and inconclusive experiment to test a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge"

Gentry was a witness for the Defense in McLean v. Arkansas which challenged the teaching of Creationism in the classroom. Gentry, and the creationists lost.

Gentry wrote a book supporting his untested theories called Creation's Tiny Mystery, in a peer review by geologist Gregg Wilkerson, Wilkerson writes that it has several logical flaws and concluded "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation." He also noted the book contains considerable autobiographical material and observed "in general I don't think educators will find its worth their time to tread through this creationist's whining."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry#cite_note-6

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"PopularScience (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” ..."

Well Son, at least one good Christian who also happens to be scientist (His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating) disagrees. And he has some impressive evidence.

Radiometric Dating

There's some heavy science there (unlike PopSci) but IF you can follow it - it is impressive.

Care to comment on how this professional scientist and Christian came to his conclusion?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

And I am curious about your line of argument.

I understand you to be bible-believing christian who has taken the "faith" seriously. (if I am in error do please correct me).

Since your "faith" is indeed faith and not based on verifiable fact or physical evidence WHY does it matter to you whether or not science agrees with the bible?

Suppose the earth REALLY is billions of years old. Does that fact make your god disappear?