Introduction to Biblical Nonsense Part 1: Noah's Ark

[ConfusedMan]

Can you post a link for the study? I'm curious to see their calculations.

"After only a few thousand years you think there would be a prominent number of human and animal fossils evident in the upper layer of the earths crust."

That's a good thought! I'm actually very interested to hear how global flood theorist respond. ACB will have one I'm sure.[/quote]

Yeah here it is. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 85/?no-ist

[abelcainsbrother]

At this point I'll just say,it is a whole lot easier to believe Noah built an ark,keep in mind he worked on it 100 years before the flood came,but it is much easier to believe Noah built the ark than to believe you can have this universe,all of the laws,energy and mass that make it up,plus life without a cause,as a matter of fact all bible stories are easier to believe than what people must believe if they reject a creator.

[ConfusedMan]

At this point I'll just say,it is a whole lot easier to believe Noah built an ark,keep in mind he worked on it 100 years before the flood came,but it is much easier to believe Noah built the ark than to believe you can have this universe,all of the laws,energy and mass that make it up,plus life without a cause,as a matter of fact all bible stories are easier to believe than what people must believe if they reject a creator.

I understand that abelcainsbrother, but what I am trying to get at here is if it is rational to believe the story of Noah (or any other supernatural bible story) without evidence of such a epic disaster being left on earth or if it is possible to do what Noah and his family did with insufficient material. I too believe that the universe could not exist without a first cause, but that is a different subject entirely than the account of Noah's ark.

[abelcainsbrother]

101 anti-Noah flood beliefs is hard to tackle but I am a Christian who believes in Noah's flood and it being a global flood however I do not think we can back it up the way YEC's explain it.

So I will not use any AIG type evidence,instead I will use secular scientific discoveries that point to world wide dust,found in the ice sheets,the oceans and everywhere else scientists have looked and it amazingly dates to the time frame of Noah's flood about 4500- 5000 years ago.Now this dust that has been discovered was caused by a world wide drought and this would point to a drought after Noah's flood.This evidence does not prove a global flood though but is evidence for a drought after Noah's flood that produced this dust.

Now with this evidence discovered by secular scientists I think that with an earth covered about 70% of water with only 30% not covered,this already shows a global flood,just not completely and I do not understand how science can not conceive that there could have been a global flood.

If we look to NOAA then they say the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet and this is deeper than the tallest mountains on land are tall so that if the earth's surface was once a lot more level before the flood and the water pushed some land down and some up then I do not understand how science can deny a global flood.

People can Google world wide dust and probably find the links and do the research themselves as I'm tired of posting links that give evidence,only to be rejected by anti-God people.

I researched world wide dust, but I only found that the incident occurred in AD 536 or later. Are you talking about a different event? Because I couldn't find any other date for a world wide dust than Ad 536.
Also, you said something about how Noah's ark can't be explained by YEC's. I am an old-earth creationist myself, so could you expound upon that statement or perhaps just send me a link to whatever you were addressing? I would be very interested in hearing some alternative explanations for Noah's ark.

Here are some links that might help get you started

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cont ... 9.abstract

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

Notice that it fits with the timing of Noah's flood and this is about climate change that produced a drought after Noah's flood.I don't like to cast pearls before swine.But this can get you started looking in this direction.

[abelcainsbrother]

At this point I'll just say,it is a whole lot easier to believe Noah built an ark,keep in mind he worked on it 100 years before the flood came,but it is much easier to believe Noah built the ark than to believe you can have this universe,all of the laws,energy and mass that make it up,plus life without a cause,as a matter of fact all bible stories are easier to believe than what people must believe if they reject a creator.

I understand that abelcainsbrother, but what I am trying to get at here is if it is rational to believe the story of Noah (or any other supernatural bible story) without evidence of such a epic disaster being left on earth or if it is possible to do what Noah and his family did with insufficient material. I too believe that the universe could not exist without a first cause, but that is a different subject entirely than the account of Noah's ark.

I've already explained that secular scientists discovered a climate change,that produced a drought,that produced dust world wide,this dust is in the ice sheets,in the oceans and everywhere scientists have looked and this dates to the time of Noah's flood and yet you just ignore this.So I'm going to leave it up to you to search it out if you choose too.I'm not going to give my explanation for evidence of a global flood when you are already denying world wide climate change that dates to Noah's flood.Good luck in your research.

[Audie]

At this point I'll just say,it is a whole lot easier to believe Noah built an ark,keep in mind he worked on it 100 years before the flood came,but it is much easier to believe Noah built the ark than to believe you can have this universe,all of the laws,energy and mass that make it up,plus life without a cause,as a matter of fact all bible stories are easier to believe than what people must believe if they reject a creator.

I understand that abelcainsbrother, but what I am trying to get at here is if it is rational to believe the story of Noah (or any other supernatural bible story) without evidence of such a epic disaster being left on earth or if it is possible to do what Noah and his family did with insufficient material. I too believe that the universe could not exist without a first cause, but that is a different subject entirely than the account of Noah's ark.

I've already explained that secular scientists discovered a climate change,that produced a drought,that produced dust world wide,this dust is in the ice sheets,in the oceans and everywhere scientists have looked and this dates to the time of Noah's flood and yet you just ignore this.So I'm going to leave it up to you to search it out if you choose too.I'm not going to give my explanation for evidence of a global flood when you are already denying world wide climate change that dates to Noah's flood.Good luck in your research.

You say this layer of dust is in the polar ice? How did they date the age of it?

[Audie]

Humor me for a moment. In order for the Flood story to be true, we have to believe God exists.

So, for the sake of the story as it's written in Genesis, assume God exists. According to the story, God told Noah how to build the ark. So, assuming God exists, is it out of the scope of reality to believe that God would know how to have Noah build an ark?

is it outside the scope of reality that he couldda made talking pongids?

The point is whether it happened, not whether a theoretical god couldda did somthing.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

At this point I'll just say,it is a whole lot easier to believe Noah built an ark,keep in mind he worked on it 100 years before the flood came,but it is much easier to believe Noah built the ark than to believe you can have this universe,all of the laws,energy and mass that make it up,plus life without a cause,as a matter of fact all bible stories are easier to believe than what people must believe if they reject a creator.

I understand that abelcainsbrother, but what I am trying to get at here is if it is rational to believe the story of Noah (or any other supernatural bible story) without evidence of such a epic disaster being left on earth or if it is possible to do what Noah and his family did with insufficient material. I too believe that the universe could not exist without a first cause, but that is a different subject entirely than the account of Noah's ark.

I've already explained that secular scientists discovered a climate change,that produced a drought,that produced dust world wide,this dust is in the ice sheets,in the oceans and everywhere scientists have looked and this dates to the time of Noah's flood and yet you just ignore this.So I'm going to leave it up to you to search it out if you choose too.I'm not going to give my explanation for evidence of a global flood when you are already denying world wide climate change that dates to Noah's flood.Good luck in your research.

You say this layer of dust is in the polar ice? How did they date the age of it?

I'd assume by estimating average arctic snowfall per year (which compacted into the ice). Read the previous conversations to see how we devolved into this, Audie.

[Audie]

At this point I'll just say,it is a whole lot easier to believe Noah built an ark,keep in mind he worked on it 100 years before the flood came,but it is much easier to believe Noah built the ark than to believe you can have this universe,all of the laws,energy and mass that make it up,plus life without a cause,as a matter of fact all bible stories are easier to believe than what people must believe if they reject a creator.

I understand that abelcainsbrother, but what I am trying to get at here is if it is rational to believe the story of Noah (or any other supernatural bible story) without evidence of such a epic disaster being left on earth or if it is possible to do what Noah and his family did with insufficient material. I too believe that the universe could not exist without a first cause, but that is a different subject entirely than the account of Noah's ark.

I've already explained that secular scientists discovered a climate change,that produced a drought,that produced dust world wide,this dust is in the ice sheets,in the oceans and everywhere scientists have looked and this dates to the time of Noah's flood and yet you just ignore this.So I'm going to leave it up to you to search it out if you choose too.I'm not going to give my explanation for evidence of a global flood when you are already denying world wide climate change that dates to Noah's flood.Good luck in your research.

You say this layer of dust is in the polar ice? How did they date the age of it?

I'd assume by estimating average arctic snowfall per year (which compacted into the ice). Read the previous conversations to see how we devolved into this, Audie.

That is not in fact how it is done, but there is an important point in here, that only ABC can properly respond to. I hope he will. There is a bit of an epiphany in it, if he has the capacity for one.

[HappyFlappyTheist]

That is not in fact how it is done, but there is an important point in here, that only ABC can properly respond to. I hope he will. There is a bit of an epiphany in it, if he has the capacity for one.

Hmm... Maybe I should've done my reading first.

"Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H and O). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and high pressure and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.

Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years per meter at 100 m depth, 600yr/m at 200 m, 7000yr/m at 400 m, 5000yr/m at 800 m, 6000yr/m at 1600 m, and 5000yr/m at 1934 m.[24]

Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences."


Plagiarized from wikipedia

[HappyFlappyTheist]

His point is irrelevant, audie. The bible dates the flood to apx. 2300 BC, he's changing the time period about 3000 years to fit with even the slightest hint of evidence for a global flood. Again, the dust in the record is from a climate change event, If I remember correctly this climate change was brought on by an eruption? Maybe my history is off, feel free to call me out if I'm wrong.

Edit: I'm right, volcano eruption did happen 5200 years ago (probably causing the climate change event and the dust in the ice record).

[Audie]

His point is irrelevant, audie. The bible dates the flood to apx. 2300 BC, he's changing the time period about 3000 years to fit with even the slightest hint of evidence for a global flood. Again, the dust in the record is from a climate change event, If I remember correctly this climate change was brought on by an eruption? Maybe my history is off, feel free to call me out if I'm wrong.

Edit: I'm right, volcano eruption did happen 5200 years ago (probably causing the climate change event and the dust in the ice record).

perfectly good info, but I need ABC to respond, and there is great relevance in this.

[ConfusedMan]

Audie said: That is not in fact how it is done, but there is an important point in here, that only ABC can properly respond to. I hope he will. There is a bit of an epiphany in it, if he has the capacity for one.[/quote]

Hey, hey, no insults now. I agree that ABC has a lot more more blind faith than I'm used to seeing, but the jab at his intelligence will probably not help in convincing him of anything. The simple fact is that, hypothetically, in a universe with an all-powerful deity, the physically impossible becomes possible through that deity, and subsequently if you believe in that deity, than any supernatural event (Noah's ark, Tower of Babel) is never out of the question. So essentially, though I hate using this term, God's power can always fill any gap in a story, just as ABC sees it here.

[Audie]

Audie said: That is not in fact how it is done, but there is an important point in here, that only ABC can properly respond to. I hope he will. There is a bit of an epiphany in it, if he has the capacity for one.

Hey, hey, no insults now. I agree that ABC has a lot more more blind faith than I'm used to seeing, but the jab at his intelligence will probably not help in convincing him of anything. The simple fact is that, hypothetically, in a universe with an all-powerful deity, the physically impossible becomes possible through that deity, and subsequently if you believe in that deity, than any supernatural event (Noah's ark, Tower of Babel) is never out of the question. So essentially, though I hate using this term, God's power can always fill any gap in a story, just as ABC sees it here.

Its not about his intelligence, and was in no way intended as a jab, or other commentary on that.

You do know that some people, especially as they get older, and depending on the emotional commitment to some position are really just impossible to move.

Im perfectly aware that if one assumes that a god is involved, and that it can and does do anything it likes with no physical limitations at all, then that fills a gap.

One acquaintance says of the lack of evidence for a flood: "That is true, but God cleaned it up".

I've a notion, still undemonstrated, that if someone of that rigid mindset can be shown just ONE error in their beliefs, one thing that does not work, perhaps they will be able to see that there could be more. Epiphany and all.

Whether or not someone who cannot make that jump is unintelligent, you choose for yourself. I am not interested in nor addressing intelligence, in this case.

As I understand it, ABC is saying that this dust he talks about is a product of the world wide flood, and that it can be dated by the ice.

This brings up some rather obvious questions, which I'd like to see him address.

[ConfusedMan]

Audie said: That is not in fact how it is done, but there is an important point in here, that only ABC can properly respond to. I hope he will. There is a bit of an epiphany in it, if he has the capacity for one.

Hey, hey, no insults now. I agree that ABC has a lot more more blind faith than I'm used to seeing, but the jab at his intelligence will probably not help in convincing him of anything. The simple fact is that, hypothetically, in a universe with an all-powerful deity, the physically impossible becomes possible through that deity, and subsequently if you believe in that deity, than any supernatural event (Noah's ark, Tower of Babel) is never out of the question. So essentially, though I hate using this term, God's power can always fill any gap in a story, just as ABC sees it here.

Its not about his intelligence, and was in no way intended as a jab, or other commentary on that.

You do know that some people, especially as they get older, and depending on the emotional commitment to some position are really just impossible to move.

Im perfectly aware that if one assumes that a god is involved, and that it can and does do anything it likes with no physical limitations at all, then that fills a gap.

One acquaintance says of the lack of evidence for a flood: "That is true, but God cleaned it up".

I've a notion, still undemonstrated, that if someone of that rigid mindset can be shown just ONE error in their beliefs, one thing that does not work, perhaps they will be able to see that there could be more. Epiphany and all.

Whether or not someone who cannot make that jump is unintelligent, you choose for yourself. I am not interested in nor addressing intelligence, in this case.

As I understand it, ABC is saying that this dust he talks about is a product of the world wide flood, and that it can be dated by the ice.

This brings up some rather obvious questions, which I'd like to see him address.

Hmmmm....Yeah, he made a pretty dang huge "correlation is causation" move by saying that. Also, I'm waiting to here back from him about how the ark could have been built and been successful aside from God just "making it work". Because if God could just "make it work", why have them build the ark at all? Why not just envelop them in a heavenly orb of protection while it happened instead of making them work on gigantic boat (that technically shouldn't work) for a hundred and fifty years? Hopefully some of the other members will answer that question, cause I'm really not sure if I want to know what ABC has to say concerning that element of the story.