The flood in Genesis

[Autodidact]

What I am saying is that I believe there was an actual flood that covered the whole earth.

Yes, we know that. What we don't know is on what evidence you base that.

The video's I posted did a much better job than me in showing that there are indeed good reasons to believe in the flood, and that some scientists could be mistaken in how they view the evidence.

Your problem isn't some scientists, IAMA, it's all of them. I doubt there are 5 qualified geologists on the earth today who believe there was ever a global flood. Are the all mistaken?

When I pray to God I just talk to Him the same way I would talk to you. That is what praying is, talking to God about things in our lives. I don't expect God to change every unpleasant thing that happens to me, but He can help me get through anything that the future might bring. His reasons for allowing the flood and all suffering are a part of God's plan that was in existence before the world was created. Nothing that has happened has taken God by surprise. It is all being recorded and the knowledge of the harm that our choices have caused will someday be used to bring an end to all suffering. Being able to understand what God’s reasons for the flood may have been makes it a whole lot easier to see the truth in the event.
Have a good night.

What on earth are you going on about, and why?

My point is that science has an excellent track record of learning about the natural world, and you yourself rely on it when you really need accurate information about it. It's only when it conflicts with your religious myths that suddenly you throw it out the window. Inconsistency, the hallmark of a Young Earth Creationist.

 

[IAMABELIEVER]

But in any case, why do you keep talking about Christianity and Jesus, which are irrelevant to this thread, which is about whether there has ever been a global flood? You mean like God?

Is there any chance of returning to the topic, evidence for and against a global flood? I know that you believe it despite all the evidence against it, which is not fascinating. How about this, we agree that all the evidence indicates there was never any such flood, but you believe it happened anyway. Sound fair and accurate?

Talking about the things that have come on this world that God had a hand in requires mentioning Him from time to time. This thread is about Noah's flood which is recorded in the Bible, so mentioning God and Christianity might be expected. I haven't left the topic, evidence for and against a global flood, but maybe you see a need for you to stay a little more focused. How about this, we could agree that you don't see evidence for the flood, but I do.

 

[IAMABELIEVER]

Yes, we know that. What we don't know is on what evidence you base that. Your problem isn't some scientists, IAMA, it's all of them. I doubt there are 5 qualified geologists on the earth today who believe there was ever a global flood. Are the all mistaken?
What on earth are you going on about, and why?

My point is that science has an excellent track record of learning about the natural world, and you yourself rely on it when you really need accurate information about it. It's only when it conflicts with your religious myths that suddenly you throw it out the window. Inconsistency, the hallmark of a Young Earth Creationist.

No matter what evidence I share you won’t receive it as evidence. With all your knowledge you should know that there are many scientists who believe in God. I don't think we will come to much agreement tonight so it is time to agree to disagree. Good night Autodidact.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Autodidact]

Now, IAMA, that's not true, is it? You haven't made an effort to familiarize yourself with basic geology and its understanding of our planet, have you? You don't know why every geologist in the world knows there has never been, and could never be, a global flood, do you? In fact, you believe in that flood despite the evidence, isn't that true?

Did you notice that as soon as I asked you some simple, basic, obvious questions, you couldn't answer them, and immediately had to resort to miracles?

Did you know that for the flood to be true, all of Geology, Biology, Archeology, Anthropology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Paleontology and most of Physics would have to be false? That the same principles of physics that make your computer work would have to be false? Remember when we figured out that when it comes to reality, you rely on science? But when it comes to the flood, you reject it.

Inconsistency is the surest sign of someone being just plain wrong. If their position and worldview aren't even consistent with itself, it must, logically, be wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

No matter what evidence I share you won’t receive it as evidence.

Please don't presume to read my mind. The problem is not my bias. Unlike you, my mind is completely open to the preponderance of the evidence. I have no axe to grind one way or the other, and could care less whether there was a flood, or not. All I care about is the truth. The problem is not my bias; the problem is that there was never any such flood, so the evidence isn't there.

With all your knowledge you should know that there are many scientists who believe in God. I don't think we will come to much agreement tonight so it is time to agree to disagree. Good night Autodidact.

Yes, there are thousands of scientists who believe in God. What they don't believe is Noah's flood. That's because they're scientists.

Yes, when the going gets tough, the people who are afraid to expose their views to evidence and logic flee. Bye.

 

[themadhair]

Without getting into the problems with dendrochronology (tree-ring dating)

Put up or shut up. Given that the dendrochronological record records the Vesuvius eruption in 79 AD and agrees with that date you will have to back up you claim of its unreliability.

and carbon 14 dating, suffice it to say they are far from reliable over a certain age.

Do you know what isochron dating is?

Those interested in learning more about the issues and problems with 'scientific' dating methods can google them.

They would also find decades of peer-reviewed papers backing the reliability of those methods.

I would urge all truth-seekers not to be bullied by the often abusive and condescending tone of those who attack the Bible's truthfulness.

I would encourage anybody to demand evidence for any claims made. Unfortunately, evidence only tells one story.

I believe in miracles but that isn’t the same as magic.

Miracles are acts of magic.

My response to you in trying to show that I have good reasons for believing the things I believe. My faith isn't blind as you might think.

So far you have yet to present anything in the same zip code as a good reason. Linking to videos due to your inability to defend your position should tell you something.

You really should finish watching the other two videos because it does get better in my opinion.

Why should I? The first video was an insult to human intelligence and travesty to scientific and logical inquiry. If there are evidences of any note, as opposed to pointless rhetoric, then feel free to present. You don’t even have the good grace to educate yourself on anything regarding matters of science so I think it somewhat hypocritical to think I should suffer the two remaining videos.

If there are valid evidences then present them.

I can understand your arguments against what I believe,

No you don’t. You don’t know the first thing about any of the tens of scientific disciplines that flat out contradict the flood, so can stop with the fake empathy right there.

so I am presenting some fact in these videos that should help you understand why I believe the way I do.

I believe you hold your beliefs because you simply do not understand just how contradictory your beliefs are to reality. I believe you hold your beliefs because you hide from opposing evidence and the knowledge delivered by the scientific method. I believe you hold your beliefs because you uncritically swallow what you have been told, having neither the research skills nor will to examine them upon the altar of skeptical inquiry. And the worst bit is that the video I watch confirmed that.

From what I see a lot of people have no idea how a believer can believe in Jesus after seeing the evidence that science has to offer.

Lets get one thing straight – you haven’t got the faintest clue what science has to offer. That video I watched never featured one single thing that could be regarded as scientific. Not a single thing. How you can claim to have seen the evidence of science when you are utterly ignorant of the myriad of scientific disciplines that flat-out contradict the flood is beyond me, and it shows that you are wilfully ignorant.

Ignorance is curable. Berkeley university has many of its lectures on YouTube. Most other university websites have entire sections dedicated to communicating science to the public. Google has a feature called scholar which allows people easy access to hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers. There is nothing preventing you from learning the introduction to any branch of science – nothing apart from your adherence to protecting your faith.

It is amazing how you see things differently when you really believe in the existence of God. All of a sudden the flood isn’t such a big problem after all.

The above sums it up really. It shows that you hold to the flood in spite of the what the physical evidence says. You believe your god gave you intelligence and the ability for rational thought and inquiry – why do you insult your god by not using these qualities?

I was an atheist for many years and I think I can relate to the things you believe.

I didn’t believe in the flood when I was a Christian you know. Even as a six year old kid I could see the problem of there being too little water.

I'm sure you have been studying creationism for many years, but I don't think you know more about Christianity than I do.

I believe I do. The largest Christian group are the Catholics which go back to the time of Paul. I was raised Catholic. Their entire history is a testament to the triumph of physical evidence over literalism (albeit with the church having to be dragged kicking and screaming). You cannot make the claim that you know more about Christianity while cheapening it by holding to an embarrassing literalism of Genesis. If your theology is so simplistic as be unable to differentiate metaphor from the literal then you really don’t know much about Christianity.

How can a believer argue with people who will not consider anything that goes against what they believe they see?

You are essentially asking why people are skeptical regarding claims disproven by evidence. It’s simple. Those claims are disproven by evidence. If you really needed this to be spelled out then maybe we aren’t the ones with the problem?

What I am saying is that I believe there was an actual flood that covered the whole earth.

And you make Christians and Christianity a laughing stock when you proclaim such. If you fail so hard with the physical world that you harbour the delusion of a global flood, then maybe you shouldn’t be trying to lecture anyone on the metaphysical world? Just a suggestion, but if you make demonstrably untrue claims then wouldn’t any true claims you make be badly tainted?

, and that some scientists could be mistaken in how they view the evidence.

By ‘some’ you really ‘the vast overwhelming majority’. I find it baffling that you can proclaim anything about science when you know absolutely nothing about it.

How about this, we could agree that you don't see evidence for the flood, but I do.

You haven’t presented any of that evidence. People in this thread have given you evidence showing the flood story to be wrong and you haven’t touched any of that. In short, you are avoiding evidence like the plague.

Evidence against the global flood:

1) Angular Unconformities.
Part of the effort made to support the global flood involve trying to explain away the geology by proclaiming that the flood laid down all the layers. One of the (many) problems with this is that it isn’t possible for a flood to both deposit the layers and keel them over in the same process.
Given that for every layer in geological column there are examples of angular unconformities proves the flood had nothing to do with them.

2) Paleosoils.
If the layers were laid down by the flood then how come those layers are interspersed with paleosoil layers? Often these paleosoil layers contain traces of rootlet horizons which show that these layers, when they were still soil before compression, were inhabited in situ. This proves the time differential between the layers in contradiction to the flood.

3) Correlation of dating methods that show no evidence of a global flood.
I made a video showing the correlation between various independent dating methods:
YouTube - Dating concordance -- Another case against a young earth
Since these dating methods all agree, and none show any evidence of the flood, how can you explain the complete correlation between these methods?

Over to you chaps.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Talking about the things that have come on this world that God had a hand in requires mentioning Him from time to time. This thread is about Noah's flood which is recorded in the Bible, so mentioning God and Christianity might be expected. I haven't left the topic, evidence for and against a global flood, but maybe you see a need for you to stay a little more focused. How about this, we could agree that you don't see evidence for the flood, but I do.

Evidence must be "evident". There can be no such thing as evidence that only some people can see. When someone's blood turns up at a crime scene, that's evidence any resonable person can understand. When DNA tests prove that a man is not guilty of rape, that's evidence that is compelling to any reasonable person.

 

[Troublemane]

People make up stories to explain things they dont understand, and have for millennia. When people climbing mountains found evidence of sea life on top, like shells and fossils and such, they had no concept of the mountains raising up over millions of years. They assumed there must have been some sort of global flood. That this story is universal doesnt mean that there was an actual flood, but that the story was carried wherever people went.

And like many stories in the Bible, it existed long before the people who wrote the Bible ever lived. So when it was put into the Bible, it was given a moralistic spin. Just like every other story in the Bible.

As to why did Noah stay in the Ark an extra 2 months after the water had dried up? I think the storyteller was trying to depict Noah as terrified, and did not come out until God told him to. So its just another way to put a religious spin on the story---dont do anything til "God" tells you to.

 

[tumbleweed41]

With all your knowledge you should know that there are many scientists who believe in God.

Why does the fact that a scientist believes or disbelieves in the Abrahamic God have any merit to your argument?
Belief in God does not translate into a literal flood. Any scientist who ignored facts in order to support a worldwide flood would not only be unworthy of being called a "scientist", but would show the weakness of his faith by limiting God to the words of men.
How weak is your faith IMABELIEVER?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/80860-how-weak-your-faith.html

 

[Arlanbb]

Without getting into the problems with dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) and carbon 14 dating, suffice it to say they are far from reliable over a certain age.

Such dates presented with seeming authority are nothing more than guesses, and not reliable guesses. Those interested in learning more about the issues and problems with 'scientific' dating methods can google them.

Hi rusra02 ~ I don't know where you get your misinformation on tree-ring dating not being reliable but google is not the place to do it. Anybody can write anything in Google so you will find bad information with good.

Two months ago I went to the source of the tree-ring research at the University at Tucson AZ. My family and I spent over two hours looking over all the research that has been done there for over 50 years. Dr. Rex Adams [ the head man there] showed us around, answered all our questions and showed us the tabulations of tree-rings that date back continusally over 8000 years from today. There are students and other scientist from all over the world that come there to work on tree-ring studies and many of the rings are so close together they have to use microscopes to count the rings. We had a chance to view some of their work while there.

I'm sure you don't know that they also have another block of tree-rings that are about 3000 years older than the first 8000 years which they have not found the connection for between the two. So in reality they have tree-rings that date back to at least 11,000 years from today for the Brisle Cone Pines. There is no evidence of a worldwide Genesis deluge in any old world history anywhere.

For your information I do believe in God and he did create this earth and I do believe most of the Bible is a living history of the Hebrew people written by men.

 

[rusra02]

Without getting into the problems with dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) and carbon 14 dating, suffice it to say they are far from reliable over a certain age.

Such dates presented with seeming authority are nothing more than guesses, and not reliable guesses. Those interested in learning more about the issues and problems with 'scientific' dating methods can google them.

Hi rusra02 ~ I don't know where you get your misinformation on tree-ring dating not being reliable but google is not the place to do it. Anybody can write anything in Google so you will find bad information with good.

Two months ago I went to the source of the tree-ring research at the University at Tucson AZ. My family and I spent over two hours looking over all the research that has been done there for over 50 years. Dr. Rex Adams [ the head man there] showed us around, answered all our questions and showed us the tabulations of tree-rings that date back continusally over 8000 years from today. There are students and other scientist from all over the world that come there to work on tree-ring studies and many of the rings are so close together they have to use microscopes to count the rings. We had a chance to view some of their work while there.

I'm sure you don't know that they also have another block of tree-rings that are about 3000 years older than the first 8000 years which they have not found the connection for between the two. So in reality they have tree-rings that date back to at least 11,000 years from today for the Brisle Cone Pines. There is no evidence of a worldwide Genesis deluge in any old world history anywhere.

For your information I do believe in God and he did create this earth and I do believe most of the Bible is a living history of the Hebrew people written by men.

Some trees live a long time, but there is no tree that has lived 11,000 years. And the supposed ages of trees are often guessed at, sometimes using carbon-14 dating. So how do researchers go back 11,000 years? In order to extend the scale, scientists try to match overlapping patterns of thin and thick rings in pieces of dead wood found lying nearby. .

But the tree-ring standard does not stand alone either. Sometimes they are not sure just where to put one of the dead pieces, so what do they do? They ask for a radiocarbon measurement on it and use that as a guide in fitting it in. It reminds one of two lame men with only one crutch between them, who take turns using it, one leaning for a while on his partner, then helping to hold him up.
One must wonder at the miraculous preservation of loose bits of wood lying so long in the open...
On the other hand, people who believe in the Flood have eye-witness testimony from Jesus Christ, who was alive in heaven (John 8:58). His eyewitness testimony is "Noah entered into the Ark, and the flood arrived" (Luke 17:26,27) Other Bible writers add their testimony under inspiration by God. Either the flood occurred or Jesus lied. And Jesus does not lie. (John 18:37)
​

You state: I don't know where you get your misinformation on tree-ring dating not being reliable but google is not the place to do it. Anybody can write anything in Google so you will find bad information with good.

Each person can and should make sure of all things, and hold fast to what is fine. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Faith is not blind credulity. It is belief based on convincing evidence (Hebrews 11:1) Honest hearted searchers for the truth should not be discouraged from seeking truth. And much of what passes for science is not true, as many respected scientists attest.

 

[themadhair]

And the supposed ages of trees are often guessed at, sometimes using carbon-14 dating.

Factually false on two counts:
1) The tree rings really do have to be counted in order for their dates to be taken as absolutes. A C14 result can be used to speed up the process (otherwise thousands of tree rings would have to be examined in order to find every fit), but they still have to be sighted by eye.
2) The dendrochronological record is actually used to calibrate C14. In order to use C14 dating you need to know how much C14 there was in the atmosphere historically. Tree rings contain the information of the atmospheric chemical composition when it was alive. You got it backwards – C14 scales are calibrated from dendrochronological records.

But the tree-ring standard does not stand alone either. Sometimes they are not sure just where to put one of the dead pieces, so what do they do? They ask for a radiocarbon measurement on it and use that as a guide in fitting it in.

Factually untrue and a borderline lie. If the dendrochronological sample cannot be sighted it cannot be accepted s valid. Crossdating (the process of matching up tree rings) is a very rigorous process using a great deal of statistical analysis. In some cases chemical analysis is used as an added verification.

One must wonder at the miraculous preservation of loose bits of wood lying so long in the open...

But the majority of tree samples used for dendrochronology were not found in the open. The Belfast curve, considered the de facto dendrochronological record, is composed of tree samples that were preserved in Irish bogs.

[mod edit] Compare the following from here with rushra02’s post:

But the tree-ring standard does not stand alone either. Sometimes they are not sure just where to put one of the dead pieces, so what do they do? They ask for a radiocarbon measurement on it and use that as a guide in fitting it in. It reminds one of two lame men with only one crutch between them, who take turns using it, one leaning for a while on his partner, then helping to hold him up.

One must wonder at the miraculous preservation of loose bits of wood lying so long in the open.

On the other hand, people who believe in the Flood have eye-witness testimony from Jesus Christ, who was alive in heaven (John 8:58). His eyewitness testimony is "Noah entered into the Ark, and the flood arrived" (Luke 17:26,27) Other Bible writers add their testimony under inspiration by God. Either the flood occurred or Jesus lied. And Jesus does not lie. (John 18:37)

You reject physical evidence you can see with your own eyes in favour of this??????? Jesus may not lie, but by regurgitating the falsehoods above you certainly do.

Faith is not blind credulity. It is belief based on convincing evidence.

Which is more convincing evidence? Physical evidence that can be cross checked with other physical evidence or testimony from a person who wasn’t alive when an event took place????

Honest hearted searchers for the truth should not be discouraged from seeking truth.

[mod edit] You plagiarise for starters.

And much of what passes for science is not true, as many respected scientists attest.

Have those scientists submitted their ideas regarding the falsity of dendrochronology for peer-review? No? I wonder why.

 

[Arlanbb]

Hi rusra02 ~
Some trees live a long time, but there is no tree that has lived 11,000 years. And the supposed ages of trees are often guessed at, sometimes using carbon-14 dating. So how do researchers go back 11,000 years? In order to extend the scale, scientists try to match overlapping patterns of thin and thick rings in pieces of dead wood found lying nearby. .For your information Two months ago I asked Rex Adam if they used C-14 to place questionable rings as you suggested and he said NO because C-14 dating back 8000 years can be off up to 5 to 8% from the tree-rings real dates. They don't "try" to match tree-rings from to different trees, their criteria for matching two different trees is that the rings have to overlap 50 years before there is a positive match. They use computers with their dates to help them show a relationship between two trees.

But the tree-ring standard does not stand alone either. Sometimes they are not sure just where to put one of the dead pieces, so what do they do? They ask for a radiocarbon measurement on it and use that as a guide in fitting it in.
You really need to go see for yourself at Tucson Az. The information you are giving out is a lie, YOU as a Christian should not be lying to people. YOU really don't have any idea how they collect information from the dead trees that are laying around on the White Mountains in California.

One must wonder at the miraculous preservation of loose bits of wood lying so long in the open...YES it is "MIRACULOUS" that God has set up condition to preserve the pine cone trees on the White Mountains for us to see today. It is also true there are "loose bits of wood lying in the open" as you suggest but that is not where Bore samples are taken from. They get the samples from dead tree that have been laying around on the hill sides, some are covered with dirt and preserved in the ground. Because there is hardly any rain up there on the mountains [I think about 2 to 5 in /year] the tree-rings grow very close together making the trees very very hard so they really weather very well in the dry atmosphere.

I'm very surprised that YOU claiming to be a Christian but you keep giving misinformation on things such as Tree-Rings YOU really don't know anything about. That is LYING and God does not like it when his children lie. So why do you keep LYING to us??

No matter what the Bible say or Jesus said or Paul said there are Tree-Rings that do date back over 11,000 year. That is true physical evidence that God has left with us, which you have no knowledge to really disprove it.

I have been to the University at Tucson, talked to the head man that runs the Tree-Ring Research department, saw what they are doing and the information you give out is completely different than the truth.

I think it is about time you apologize to the rest of us that you have really no true information on Tree-Ring Research. All you have been doing is bull-****ing us.

​

 

[painted wolf]

Lying is ok... as long as you are lying to protect God.

You know... because God needs your protection from truths that you don't like. :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, please Google World's oldest trees...

This is for those individuals searching for the truth..

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Anyone ever read Gilgamesh.

The point being that the story of "The Flood" is not unique to Abrahamic religions.

Interestingly enough is the Epic of Gilgamesh, starting with Tablet Eleven and the story of Noah have quite a few similarities.

Here's a comparative study regarding the two stories.
A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis

My questions: Have other civilizations during that time written about a catastrophic flood? If so, does this not give credence to the possibility of an atypical flood?

 

[tumbleweed41]

List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, please Google World's oldest trees...

This is for those individuals searching for the truth..

You are grasping at straws here. No one said there are living trees that date back to the flood.:foot:

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, rusra, what is your problem with counting tree rings?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, rusra, what is your problem with counting tree rings?

Perhaps the real problem is that there is only one ring, to rule us all.

 

[Arlanbb]

List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, please Google World's oldest trees...

This is for those individuals searching for the truth..

rusra02 ~ YOU are pathetic. If you want to know the real "TRUTH" about Tree-Ring Research you don't go to Google and type in "world's oldest trees....", YOU should go to the people who have done all the research on Tree-Rings for the last 50 years, which is at the University of Arizona at Tucson, AZ. If you are going to use Google then type in "LABORATORY OF TREE-RING RESEARCH, AZ" or here is what you would get. http://www.ltrr.arizonia.edu/dendrochronology.html .

If you want to learn how dendrochronology works and do some yourself then after the "edu/" type in the following "/skeletonplot/introcrossdate.htm". If you would like to see a picture of Rex Adam, the director, go to Environmental experts rate the toxic risks at home | www.azstarnet.com ® . I think he aways dresses like that because he looked like that when i saw him two months ago.

rusra02 ~ your problem is YOU don't know a dam thing about Tree-Ring dating and YOU don't want to know a dam thing about Tree-Ring dating because if YOU learned the truth about it you would reilize that the so called biblical deluge NEVER HAPPENED. I believe in God a the creator and I believe that most of the bible is a history of the Hebrew people BUT the first part of Genesis has nothing to do with the Hebrew people and is a legend only.