Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117

Thread: Dating the Flood back 650 years

  1. Top | #21
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    20,795
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,272
    Rep Power
    80
    If tectonic plates were moving at 5mph a few thousand years ago, then the Law of Conservation of Energy, combined with their current speed, implies that they released enough heat when slowing down to melt the entire crust, boil the oceans, and kill all life on Earth.

    I suspect that this wouldn't have gone entirely unnoticed.

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    1,134
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist
    In the video it shows there are 4 versions of the genealogies. The version most English Bibles use involve 30's but 3 of the 4 versions involve 130's. So it seems 130's are the correct numbers.
    I also am not going to watch the video. I asked what you thought, because you are the one who is here. So please tell me what this shorthand of yours means. Which date do you think is correct? Also, do you think that evidence works by vote? If there are disagreements between versions of a story, it is unreasonable to simply pick the most common one and call it correct. Do you really think like that, and live like that?

    The computer graphics recreations and specific details of tsunamis and catastrophic plate tectonics made it look like the guy knows what he is talking about.
    Also, please understand the difference between a computer graphic and a computer simulation. The first you can make whatever you like, the second is at least supposed to be based on actual data that is inputted, and if the data is good, can be useful. As you say, it is easy to LOOK like you know what you are talking about if your presentation skills are up to snuff. Anyone who works with computers knows the rule "Shit in, Shit out," which is a way of expressing that the output of a computer is only as good as the data that is put in.

    Just think for a minute of what a continent moving at 5 miles an hour would look (and sound, and feel) like. And how would your wooden ark survive "several tsunamis an hour?" We've discussed, at length, the problems of the ark before. It hasn't been mentioned in this thread, probably deliberately in an attempt to make the argument "look" more reasonable, but this is a typical creationist gambit: Ignore the blatantly religious elements in the story, and create a plausible, naturalistic narrative. Present it well, convince a bunch of not very critical people that it is possible. People go away thinking "the flood could have happened, therefore the biblical story is true," ignoring the fact that the 'plausible' version would be utterly lethal to a boat full of livestock. I've noticed this sort of compartmentalizing of religious arguments before. Credible LOOKING arguments exist for nearly every element of every biblical story. Put them all together, and they fall like a house of cards.
    There are so many things about a global flood that make it impossible that isn't worth entertaining 'plausible scenarios' because there's no such thing. The whole idea violates multiple laws of physics, geology, chemistry and most of reality as we know it.

    None of the 'evidence' is remotely conclusive, not to mention even leading down that path unless you are pre-disposed to want it to (and ignore things like physics and history). Also, you'll note that creationists and YECers generally tend to look at the 'evidence' in isolation. There is no consilience.

    AKA the curves don't agree.

    I'm not going to hash it out for you, but you're welcome to read this thread.

    Also this thread.

    Seriously, when you have geologists, archaeologists, physicists, and scientists from multiple fields explaining what's so wrong about the flood story, you should really give up.

    So read those threads, and come back with any questions (or ask over there).

  3. Top | #23
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    22,330
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    64,803
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    I don't really want to contribute to the hits on a global flood video.
    What is some of the evidence?
    Well it says that there are ocean floor fossils on some mountains...
    And what of the fossils that are in bedrocks hundreds of feet beneath the ground surface?
    I recommend watching it
    Watching it would be a waste of time. There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood. Now there are have been lots of floods in the Earth's history, but none of a single massive event.

  4. Top | #24
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,576
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,144
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    I don't really want to contribute to the hits on a global flood video.
    What is some of the evidence?
    Well it says that there are ocean floor fossils on some mountains... I recommend watching it - it has 1.4 million views so your viewing wouldn't make much difference.
    Mountain top fossils were claimed as evidence of flood waters covering the Earth, when such discoveries were brand new. It seemed like such a neat solution and it was until someone asked by the fossil bearing layers were not horizontal, as one would expect a layer of sediment to be.

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,685
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,529
    Rep Power
    54
    From the Index of Creationist Claims:

    Claim CC364:

    Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood. Source:

    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 203.


    Response:



    1. Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
    2. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
      • Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
      • In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
      • Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.


    References:


    1. Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The upwardly mobile fossils of Leonardo's living earth. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, pp. 17-44.


  6. Top | #26
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    533
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,419
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist
    In the video it shows there are 4 versions of the genealogies. The version most English Bibles use involve 30's but 3 of the 4 versions involve 130's. So it seems 130's are the correct numbers.
    I also am not going to watch the video. I asked what you thought, because you are the one who is here. So please tell me what this shorthand of yours means.
    There are 4 versions of the genealogies. The one used in normal Bibles has the age as a father at about 30 years old. The other 3 have the age at about 130. Altogether this adds 650 years to the genealogies.

    Which date do you think is correct? Also, do you think that evidence works by vote? If there are disagreements between versions of a story, it is unreasonable to simply pick the most common one and call it correct. Do you really think like that, and live like that?
    The 3 versions have an earlier origin. I hope you can understand why. Otherwise it means that the 30's were the original and then it became 130's independently three times for 6 people.

  7. Top | #27
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    20,795
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,272
    Rep Power
    80
    Humans don't live to 130, much less father children at that age.

    And that's still true today, with life expectancy FAR higher than at any other time in history.

    Literally everything about this story is so stupid that it cannot possibly have actually happened.

  8. Top | #28
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    533
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,419
    Rep Power
    70
    James Brown:

    Apparently the flood involved the windows of heaven and fountains of the deep so there is extra water. To get dry land you’d need land lowered and/or raised. If it is going to be raised, the biggest change would involve the ocean floor being raised

  9. Top | #29
    Senior Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    533
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    5,419
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Humans don't live to 130, much less father children at that age.

    And that's still true today, with life expectancy FAR higher than at any other time in history.

    Literally everything about this story is so stupid that it cannot possibly have actually happened.
    As you might know in Genesis before the flood it was common for people to live to more than 900.

  10. Top | #30
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    20,795
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,272
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Humans don't live to 130, much less father children at that age.

    And that's still true today, with life expectancy FAR higher than at any other time in history.

    Literally everything about this story is so stupid that it cannot possibly have actually happened.
    As you might know in Genesis before the flood it was common for people to live to more than 900.
    And in Star Wars it is common for people to use the force to move objects at a distance; And in Superman it is common for people to be saved from falling by a man who can fly.

    But the existence of something in a story isn't the same as its existence in reality.

    No historical or archaeological evidence exists that suggests humans have ever lived much more than a century at the absolute most.

    The long lifespans described in Genesis are an error, a fiction, an exaggeration, or most likely a combination of these three.

    When a book describes the impossible, and is unsupported in its description by independent sources, that tells you that it's make-believe.

    One plausible source for these impossible lifespans is that someone got confused between a lunar calendar and a solar one - 900 months is 75 years, which is a fairly unremarkable lifespan for a human being.

Similar Threads

  1. Dating terms etc
    By ruby sparks in forum Miscellaneous Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-15-2019, 09:18 AM
  2. Demon Match Dating site
    By Angry Floof in forum Freethought Humor
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-08-2018, 10:37 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-17-2017, 09:13 PM
  4. Regulate the Dating Market
    By Jason Harvestdancer in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-24-2015, 10:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •