Great Flood Evidence?

[lasthero]

I agree that the creation spoken of in Genesis was likely not the beginning of all of creation, but there's no reason to put any faith in conventional radiometric dating, saying Earth is billions of years old, since such dating methods are apparently discredited. That's because for example lava rocks known to have formed only a century or so ago are dated in the millions of years by those methods.

What lava? Can you link me to some specific papers where this happened?

And dinosaur fossils dated over 65 million years are dated by C14 dating to be only 20 to 30 thousand years old.

Again, can you link me to a specific paper where this happened? Not someone's interpretation of the paper - the ACTUAL research itself?

And if radiometric dating isn't reliable, how do you explain the correlation we see with other dating methods?

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope supporters of the Great Flood theory may like to answer a brief questionnaire at http://goo.gl/forms/DA89bsQYmr.

Perhaps you would like to ask one or two (or three) of the questions here?

 

[malvina]

Malvina, you posted too much to read in one message. But I checked out the beginning of the site you linked to at http://www.kjvbible.org/. Here's the first few paragraphs from it.

In the beginning God Created the heaven and Earth (Genesis 1:1), but Rightly-Dividing the literal wording of the Holy Bible reveals the seven-days of Genesis that follow are not a description of the Earth's original creation, nor are they some enigmatic description of the Earth's geologic history. They are the Holy Spirit's inspired Scriptural account of how the Lord God Almighty regenerated the heavens and Earth after a previous universal order was corrupted by Lucifer's fall in the ancient past. There is a vast time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Genesis 1:2 KJV)

The Bible clearly says the Earth was already here before the work of the seven-days even begins.

The Genesis Gap Doctrine, commonly called the "Gap Theory" or "Ruin-Reconstruction" interpretation of Genesis, is not a modern-day interpretation of the Holy Bible. It is a theological teaching that was espoused by the fundamental Protestant faith long before Darwin's Theory of Evolution was published; at a time when the modern geological sciences were in still in their infancy. The Genesis Gap Doctrine does not contradict the accepted scientific evidence and observations that indicate an Earth that is at least 4.5 billion years old. It also explains why there is evidence of death observed in the Earth's fossil record extending at least three-billion years back into Deep-Time.

Genesis 1:2 is the Holy Bible's first mystery. And the precise wording of this New Testament cross-reference to Genesis 1:2 provides the Biblical basis for Rightly-Dividing the truth of the matter:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

Contrary to popular neo-creationist interpretations, the above passage is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. And the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. The ramifications are obvious: The literal wording of the Bible itself reveals that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things, as is traditionally assumed. The Word of God is telling the reader there were previous worlds (see Hebrews 1:2 & 11:3) on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of Adam and his descendants, modern Man.

I agree that the creation spoken of in Genesis was likely not the beginning of all of creation, but there's no reason to put any faith in conventional radiometric dating, saying Earth is billions of years old, since such dating methods are apparently discredited. That's because for example lava rocks known to have formed only a century or so ago are dated in the millions of years by those methods. And dinosaur fossils dated over 65 million years are dated by C14 dating to be only 20 to 30 thousand years old.

Well this to me is a perfect interpretation The writer has tremendous all-round benefit It answered profound mysteries. This is not only a geologist but a scientist and I fully accept this and am greatly blessed by this site
Thanks

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

So your stand is that they layered themselves year after year, in one place, for how long, with no changes in the environment to disrupt the pile?

And why in just this one area?

Why did you think that these chalk deposits are "just in one area." They occur world wide in shallow seas. They date from many different eras.

 

[LloydK]

Dating Anomalies

LloydK said: I agree that the creation spoken of in Genesis was likely not the beginning of all of creation, but there's no reason to put any faith in conventional radiometric dating, saying Earth is billions of years old, since such dating methods are apparently discredited. That's because for example lava rocks known to have formed only a century or so ago are dated in the millions of years by those methods.

Lasthero said: What lava? Can you link me to some specific papers where this happened?

Several lava dating anomalies along with other dating anomalies are listed here:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html

LloydK said: And dinosaur fossils dated over 65 million years are dated by C14 dating to be only 20 to 30 thousand years old.

Lasthero said: Again, can you link me to a specific paper where this happened? Not someone's interpretation of the paper - the ACTUAL research itself?
And if radiometric dating isn't reliable, how do you explain the correlation we see with other dating methods?

Some anomalous dinosaur fossil datings are listed here: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
I understand that datings have to be massaged a lot in order to correlate with each other. There is corruption in science, just like in politics. Here's an article that talks about how data is massaged: http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies.

 

[LloydK]

LloydK said: I hope supporters of the Great Flood theory may like to answer a brief questionnaire at http://goo.gl/forms/DA89bsQYmr.

AV1611VET said: Perhaps you would like to ask one or two (or three) of the questions here?

I did ask earlier. Do you want to collaborate in online conferences on the Great Flood? Do you want to help make or upload videos on same?

 

[lasthero]

Dating Anomalies



Several lava dating anomalies along with other dating anomalies are listed here:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html

I'm talking about the actual papers. Have you actually read the research in question yourself?

Some anomalous dinosaur fossil datings are listed here: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Again, I'm asking for the actual research, not someone's interpretation of it. I'd prefer to look at this straight from the source of the people who do the actual work.

I understand that datings have to be massaged a lot in order to correlate with each other. There is corruption in science, just like in politics. Here's an article that talks about how data is massaged: http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies.

That link doesn't deal with correlations - it just says that the dates can't be trusted, but it doesn't explain why different methods agree. It doesn't explain why, for instance, when we date things like ice layers, the material in the layers dates back to the right age.

Also, simple saying that there's corruption in science is a smoke screen. It doesn't deal with any particular instance, it's just a way to dismiss correlating data out of hand.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page. 16

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Dating Anomalies

I understand that datings have to be massaged a lot in order to correlate with each other. There is corruption in science, just like in politics. Here's an article that talks about how data is massaged: http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies.

I would demand an apology as I have done this work personally, and I did it fully publicly, and I did not "massage" anything. I do not bother, and would not expect an apology because the creationists are not the sort to ever admit error.

The article cited by LloydK is a classic of sorts. The author, Tas Walker, earned a degree for a dissertation on how to optimally locate power plants in Australia. He claims that made him a "geologist." The specific geology claims regarding radiometric dates made by Walker are as phony as his claimed geology expertise. He started with "fossil wood" supposedly dated by C14 analysis as "from 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old." The samples were supposedly recovered on a bedded limestone with Jurassic fossils. He didn't do that work. He cited another creationist, Andrew Snelling. Snelling is a geologist also trained in Australia who found work for the Institute for Creation Research, and now works for the Answers in Genesis Ministries.

Let us take a look at the location Snelling took his "wood" sample:

Do you see an obvious problem?

These are from Snelling's own creationist publication. Look closer:

The "woody" was from a superficial deposit filled with trees, and tree roots shown in the first photo. There is a strong dark carbon discoloration from surface vegetation seen in the second photo.

They then lied about the sources of the samples to the professional laboratories. They also lied to their followers about what they had done.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Oh, even if the creationist's woody was 0ver 20 thousands years old, it would destroy their collective delusion of a 6,000 year old Universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, even if the creationist's woody was 0ver 20 thousands years old, it would destroy their collective delusion of a 6,000 year old Universe.

In what way?

I say the earth is 4.57 billion years old, but it has only been in existence for just over 6000 years.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

In what way?

I say the earth is 4.57 billion years old, but it has only been in existence for just over 6000 years.

Then your problem is with the Bible and not science.

The following list is of some of the verses which indicate that God is revealed through the “voice” of nature as well as through scripture.
Job 10: 8-14
Job 12: 7-8
Job 34: 14-15
Job 38-41
Psalm 8
Psalm 19:1-6
Psalm 50: 6
Psalm 97: 6
Psalm 98: 2-3
Psalm 104
Psalm 139
Ecclesiastes 3: 11
Habakkuk 3: 3
Proverbs 8:22-31
Acts 17: 24-31
Romans 2:14-15
Colossians 1:23


So, if the astronomical, geological, paleontology, and biological history of Earth, chemistry, and physics are all frauds then God lied. Alternately, the Bible got it mostly wrong on science but is OK on theology. Read the Bible for theology, and drop creationist bafflelgab.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then your problem is with the Bible and not science.

What problem?

The following list is of some of the verses which indicate that God is revealed through the “voice” of nature as well as through scripture.
Job 10: 8-14
Job 12: 7-8
Job 34: 14-15
Job 38-41
Psalm 8
Psalm 19:1-6
Psalm 50: 6
Psalm 97: 6
Psalm 98: 2-3
Psalm 104
Psalm 139
Ecclesiastes 3: 11
Habakkuk 3: 3
Proverbs 8:22-31
Acts 17: 24-31
Romans 2:14-15
Colossians 1:23

Nice.

My favorite psalm is Psalm 19.

So, if the astronomical, geological, paleontology, and biological history of Earth, chemistry, and physics are all frauds then God lied.

If D. B. Cooper was a fraud too, would you say God lied?

Alternately, the Bible got it mostly wrong on science but is OK on theology.

Reading the Bible for science is like reading Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

Read the Bible for theology, and drop creationist bafflelgab.

I consider "creationist bafflegab" to be creationism with science added in.

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[malvina]

I'm a Christian first and foremost - I believe that God created our World - and also the Old original EARTH
I only listen to God and the bible allowing Him to interpret it for me. If this lines up with Science and Geology that is great! and a lot of it - DOES!
So I see no reason for anyone to argue really - be it a Scientist Geologist Atheist or Christian.

This diagram does it all for me by famous Christian Clarence Larkin who was able to use his gift of drawing
to explain our Creation.
There is so much EVIDENCE of this uncovered in Ancient Archaeology of which I've done much study.

So many times things are being unearthed that completely clashes with Science teachings
I could never trust Science for this reason. Time and time again Science is being proved wrong -
but mainly where they try to eliminate God's Creative World.
Science does have a place outside of Creation but unfortunately it's often used for OCCULT purposes as is in the
case for CERN that is riddled with the occult to the extent they make no effort to deny it and have the A huge effigy of Shiva out the front which they worship and dance to They had a celebration party recently and all the members were
bearing occult symbols some even wore horns!
They DO have their place but only as far as it doesn't clash with God's creation.

Here we see God's Created Original EARTH that was presided over by Satan and God's Angels.

We see The Fall - where Satan tried to Usurp God and the Chaotic Earth that followed.

Then we see our New Created World that God made from the dust of the original created Earth
Now all this lines up with Scripture! It is what I learned and saw in the bible without any understanding of
ancient history that I

now have.

 

[Loudmouth]

View attachment 166920 The uniformitarian, old earthers, flood didn't happen sect....don't seem to understand polystrate trees.

Here's a polystrate telephone pole:

I guess Noah had electricity. Would have been nice to use power tools to build the Ark.

This is the type of game creationists play. The take an example of where a geologists says that a specific sequence of layers takes millions of years to form, and then they twist that information into the claim that geologists say ALL layers take millions of years to form. That's not an honest way to deal with the science.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the type of game creationists play. The take an example of where a geologists says that a specific sequence of layers takes millions of years to form, and then they twist that information into the claim that geologists say ALL layers take millions of years to form. That's not an honest way to deal with the science.

And adding time as necessary isn't an honest way of dealing with [literal] creationists.

Moving the decimal point as needed doesn't cut it.

 

[Loudmouth]

And adding time as necessary isn't an honest way of dealing with [literal] creationists.

Moving the decimal point as needed doesn't cut it.

We are following the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are following the evidence.

In this case, you're following a Judas goat.

 

[Loudmouth]

In this case, you're following a Judas goat.

God's creation is a Judas goat?

 

[JackRT]

God's creation is a Judas goat?

Certainly not! The first and best evidence of God's is found in the stones and the bones and the stars. After all, they were there.

 

[Loudmouth]

Certainly not! The first and best evidence of God's is found in the stones and the bones and the stars. After all, they were there.

Perhaps you should tell AV that.