Pre: Why I know the flood is a fantasy

mrswebber · Aug 3, 2007

Sorry, that was my point, I'm not decided totally what I believe. I just thought I would pass on what little I do know.
However, there was no need for the rude replys.
I have made it clear whenever I have posted, that I have little knowledge.
Obvioulsy I wasn't aware that you were all "ALL Knowing".
I will bow out now and leave you to run other newbies off the site with your rude intolerance.

WhiteMagegirl, I was trying to interact and make friends. You however, are just about the rudest person I've came across in 46 years of being on this planet.
You are welcome to your opinion, thankfully I know, that one day, you will be put right.
Goodbye.

irateional · Aug 3, 2007

The Catholic Church abandoned the concept of the flood actually happening back during the 1200's when they realized that Islamic Scholars, armed with Greek Science, could prove that there simply wasn't enough water on the planet Earth to cover every mountain.

Loudmouth · Aug 3, 2007

mrswebber said:
Sorry, that was my point, I'm not decided totally what I believe. I just thought I would pass on what little I do know.
However, there was no need for the rude replys.
I have made it clear whenever I have posted, that I have little knowledge.
Obvioulsy I wasn't aware that you were all "ALL Knowing".
I will bow out now and leave you to run other newbies off the site with your rude intolerance.

WhiteMagegirl, I was trying to interact and make friends. You however, are just about the rudest person I've came across in 46 years of being on this planet.
You are welcome to your opinion, thankfully I know, that one day, you will be put right.
Goodbye.

I'm not defending anyone's actions here, I just thought I would explain something real quick. There are arguments we call PRATTs, which stands for Points Refuted A Thousand Times. We see certain arguments from creationists over and over and over and over. It gets a bit frustrating to see people suckered in by creationists time after time. We sometimes unfairly (very unfairly in this case) shift this frustration to the person who repeats the PRATT. You probably didn't know that the trees used in dendrochronology (eg bristlecone pines and oaks) very rarely produce multiple rings in a year, and even then the multiple rings look different from true annual rings. You probably don't know all of the evidence which scientists have produced which shows that these tree ring records are trustworthy. I'm sure that if you delved into it deeper that you would agree that these are trustworthy records.

I hope that this encounter does not deter you from asking questions that you find important, or just voicing your opinion. Hope you have a great weekend.

shinbits · Aug 3, 2007

irateional said:
The Catholic Church abandoned the concept of the flood actually happening back during the 1200's when they realized that Islamic Scholars, armed with Greek Science, could prove that there simply wasn't enough water on the planet Earth to cover every mountain.

but there's that passage in the Bible that says that the moutains were raised and valleys were lowered as a result of the flood. So creationists could argue the land was flatter then.

The tree ring thing.....it's actually an interesting point if there was a flood when AiG dated it. But that's just until we find an even older living organism. But until then....

*shrug*

irateional · Aug 3, 2007

It fails though.

For one, certain geological features like Mt. Everest aren't going to be affected by a 40 day flood.

Secondly, the water has to go somewhere. No one has yet explained this. I figure the story is an exaggeration of a localized and massive flood event in the valleys around Noah's settlement.

shinbits · Aug 3, 2007

Loudmouth said:
You probably don't know all of the evidence which scientists have produced which shows that these tree ring records are trustworthy. I'm sure that if you delved into it deeper that you would agree that these are trustworthy records.

is this "oldest tree" in question rightly dated, based on the tree rings?

shinbits · Aug 3, 2007

irateional said:
It fails though.

For one, certain geological features like Mt. Everest aren't going to be affected by a 40 day flood.

If there really was a global flood, the immense weight would definately do something drastic.

Secondly, the water has to go somewhere. No one has yet explained this. I figure the story is an exaggeration of a localized and massive flood event in the valleys around Noah's settlement.

If we know just how much flatter the "pre-flood" world is supposed to be, maybe that would help account for the water reaching the highest hieghts.

But just for the record, I fully acknowledge that there is no real evidence whatsoever for a global flood right now.

irateional · Aug 3, 2007

And there never was. Where would all of the water come from, for one.

Secondly...Mt. Evereset is a fairly impregnable mountain. It was formed very slowly, by massive plate tectonic movement. Water literally doesn't effect it. Secondly, if the whole world is covered in water, it's more likely that nothing would happen. There'd be no currents, no tides, just the water coming to a still.

Loudmouth · Aug 3, 2007

shinbits said:
is this "oldest tree" in question rightly dated, based on the tree rings?

To within a few percent, yes. As mentioned, bristlecone pines sometimes do not produce an annual ring, so the actual age may be a bit higher.

But dendrochronology is not based on a single tree. It uses many, many samples that overlap. A good growing season will produce a thick ring, and a poor growing season will produce a thin ring. This creates a time signature in each series. By matching up this signature between different samples (living samples and dead samples) you are able to create a complete record that is much longer than the lifespan of any of those trees. It looks something like this:

http://sonic.net/bristlecone/images/ring_graphic.gif

If there was a flood then we would expect an abrubpt stop in the record. We would see forests where all of the trees died and new ones started. Nowhere in any of the tree ring records do we see this abrupt stop and start. Better yet, the tree rings from Europe recorded the "Little Ice Age" that occurred about 500 years ago (if memory serves). The same uninterrupted continuous record is also seen in ice cores and lake varves.

Due to the trustworthiness of these tree rings you can also measure the level of C14 for those years. As it turns out, the historic levels of C14 found in tree rings, lake varves, and ice cores agrees very nicely.

Basket · Aug 3, 2007

irateional said:
And there never was. Where would all of the water come from, for one.

Secondly...Mt. Evereset is a fairly impregnable mountain. It was formed very slowly, by massive plate tectonic movement. Water literally doesn't effect it. Secondly, if the whole world is covered in water, it's more likely that nothing would happen. There'd be no currents, no tides, just the water coming to a still.

We're getting a bit off topic, aren't we?

The creationist answer for where the water comes from is that most of it came from "the deep" which is a hypothetical underground reservoir of water.

For your information...
If the Earth was completely covered in water, the ocean would still have tides, it just wouldn't be touching any land. Tides are caused by the moon's gravity (tidal forces). Then you have two other forces still in action -- variations in temperature due to differences in the amount of sunlight received in various areas, which causes difference of air pressure and therefore cold and warm fronts. And you have the Coriolis effect, which is due to the rotation of the earth, and it causes large-scale rotational weather patterns like hurricanes.

Anyway, that's not what would cause disturbances in the land masses. It would be a result of falling water (erosion) and the weight of the water itself. I'd think the result would actually be to flatten the Earth out more, rather than to make it more mountainous. But whatever.

There are serious problems with the model of water covering the earth in only 40 days and also laying down sediment to form the upper geologic layers (as is part of the standard creation science theory). But let's deal with them in another thread, okay?

Edit: I'm going to go ahead and add a couple things I remembered. In models where water comes up from the deep, this is one of the major factors that reshapes the continents. The other thing was that the differences in temperature in the water can probably cause currents in the water, in addition to the currents in the air. But it's one of those things I don't know much about.

WhiteMageGirl · Aug 3, 2007

mrswebber said:
Sorry, that was my point, I'm not decided totally what I believe. I just thought I would pass on what little I do know.
However, there was no need for the rude replys.
I have made it clear whenever I have posted, that I have little knowledge.
Obvioulsy I wasn't aware that you were all "ALL Knowing".
I will bow out now and leave you to run other newbies off the site with your rude intolerance.

WhiteMagegirl, I was trying to interact and make friends. You however, are just about the rudest person I've came across in 46 years of being on this planet.
You are welcome to your opinion, thankfully I know, that one day, you will be put right.
Goodbye.

Sorry for the rude reply, but honestly I've done a hundred or more hours of research(outside my field of knowledge) on the topic of the global flood. So you can imagine the frustration I get when someone googles for five seconds to get the PRATT which makes their side seem plausible. Even though after I finish my argument their will be absolute zero plausibility in the global flood. Really their is no reason to even be skeptical about the flood not happening, whole civilizations have historical records straight through the flood, there are threes older than the flood, the way fossil are organised through the geological columb, and several other points I will address.

I'm not all knowing but that doesn't mean I have absolutely no knowledge of the situation at hand.

thankfully I know, that one day, you will be put right.

So now you are all knowing?

Basket · Aug 3, 2007

WhiteMageGirl said:
bla bla bla

Mrs. Webber was just retaliating for having her feelings hurt. You should just leave her be. She's probably not used to the Internet yet.

Yggdrasil · Aug 3, 2007

http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html

Read it, learn.

shinbits · Aug 3, 2007

irateional said:
Mt. Evereset is a fairly impregnable mountain. It was formed very slowly, by massive plate tectonic movement. Water literally doesn't effect it.

first of all, it wouldn't be just water. The Biblical account says that the ground opened up. In addition, the unstable ground shaking, the massive tons of water would move any mountain.

Plate movements are the only acceptable scientific explanation for Mt. Everest; but there seems to be a flaw in the way you're refuting creationist arguments. I've seen threads on this site where the evolutionists have used more sound logic. You should get a better understanding of the creationist account as well, if you want to better refute it.

Loudmouth said:
To within a few percent, yes. As mentioned, bristlecone pines sometimes do not produce an annual ring, so the actual age may be a bit higher.

But dendrochronology is not based on a single tree. It uses many, many samples that overlap. A good growing season will produce a thick ring, and a poor growing season will produce a thin ring. This creates a time signature in each series. By matching up this signature between different samples (living samples and dead samples) you are able to create a complete record that is much longer than the lifespan of any of those trees. It looks something like this:

http://sonic.net/bristlecone/images/ring_graphic.gif

okay. thanx for postin this.

Loudmouth said:
If there was a flood then we would expect an abrubpt stop in the record. We would see forests where all of the trees died and new ones started. Nowhere in any of the tree ring records do we see this abrupt stop and start.

If the flood did happen, the tree could've first grown shortly after the flood. This may throw off the date AIG used, but it would only be brushed a minor difference, and fixed with a new "more accurate" date.

WhiteMageGirl · Aug 4, 2007

If the flood did happen, the tree could've first grown shortly after the flood. This may throw off the date AIG used, but it would only be brushed a minor difference, and fixed with a new "more accurate" date.

Even a date of two hundred years before the one AiG lists wouldn't be enough. The minimum date is 2750 bc and that's assuming everything in favor of creationists a more accurate date is atleast 2,950 bc and both those contradict biblical record greatly.

Plus, AiG and ICR are proposing a 500 year ice age and 200 year melting period which would put the tree under many meters of ice. Which would add 700 years to that age.

AV1611VET · Aug 4, 2007

irateional said:
Secondly, the water has to go somewhere. No one has yet explained this.

God could have sent five times that much water, if He wanted to, and we'd still never find it.

irateional said:
I figure the story is an exaggeration of a localized and massive flood event in the valleys around Noah's settlement.

Then why was Noah and his family aboard the Ark for more than a year? And why did birds board the Ark?

Mumbo · Aug 4, 2007

AV1611VET said:
God could have sent five times that much water, if He wanted to, and we'd still never find it.

Because he magicked it away, leaving no sign that a Flood ever happened? Very tricky move for God to make.

AV1611VET · Aug 4, 2007

Mumbo said:
Because he magicked it away, leaving no sign that a Flood ever happened?

Either that, or He cleaned it up for sanitary and safety reasons. Ever think of that?

Mumbo · Aug 4, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Either that, or He cleaned it up for sanitary and safety reasons. Ever think of that?

I appreciate His concern, but it'd have been nice of Him to leave some sign of the flood behind instead of erasing the evidence. No, the Grand Canyon doesn't count.

Here's a question that just occured to me. It took a very long time for the flood waters to recede, five or six months from what I've gathered. Why'd it take so long? Did God have better things to do at the time, or was the water all going someplace?

AV1611VET · Aug 4, 2007

Mumbo said:
I appreciate His concern, but it'd have been nice of Him to leave some sign of the flood behind instead of erasing the evidence. No, the Grand Canyon doesn't count.

He did better than that --- He documented what He did, and preserved for us.

Pre: Why I know the flood is a fantasy

Active Member

Active Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Humanists &lt;3 u

Active Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Humanists &lt;3 u

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Eekum bokum

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Eekum bokum

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Humanists <3 u

Humanists <3 u