What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Oct 31, 2005

nvxplorer said:
IIRC, the lower limit of C14 dating is 500 years. The ark is claimed to be older than that. Why would this be a problem?

50,000 years, not 500.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Oct 31, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Radiometric dating couldn't be used;

If something is young, it will look old using Radiometric dating because it has only been around in the past thousand years, and will give an inaccurate reading.

....BTW, how do you tell if something reads old because it is to young to be tested or not?

There's old and there's old.

Something that is too young to be dated using radiometric dating will give a result that is well towards the youngest ages that can be dated using that technique. A sample only 3,000 years old, dated by a method that works from say 2 million to 2 billion years old, will give a result pretty close to the 2 million mark. It will not erroneously date at a billion years.

The second point would be consistency. In the above case, the sample, if multiply dated (which samples are to ensure dates are 'real') would probably give a range of dates between 1 million and say 3 million - a 50% variation from the mean, depending on the minimum ages the various techniques used can manage. A real old sample, say one 10 million years old, would be expected to date to around 9.5-10.5 million years old by all methods - around a 10% variation from the mean.

staugustine68 · Oct 31, 2005

alerj123 said:
Ive always wondered about this, but wouldn't the wood decompose after so long? Wouldn't we EXPECT not to find it ieven if it existed in the first place?

Not if it's frozen.

Asimis · Oct 31, 2005

dad said:
If the ark is found, that contained all life on earth, as the bible has said, why bother dating it? We would have a big piece of evidence that belies your dating methods, and so called falsifications of the flood, etc. Why would anyone give a hoot about wacky so called dating attempts, at that point, unless they were so dyed in the wool, that they had yielded their mental facilities to the dark side?

As I said already, just because the ark is found it does not follows that 1-the flood was global and 2-that the earth is young. The flood could well be local and the earth still old even if the ark is found.

As.

TeddyKGB · Oct 31, 2005

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
50,000 years, not 500.

Lower limit, not upper.

USincognito · Oct 31, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Radiometric dating couldn't be used;
If something is young, it will look old using Radiometric dating because it has only been around in the past thousand years, and will give an inaccurate reading.

Could you expand on this logic? How exactly does something that only is 2,000 years old "appear" to be older, and radiometrically date older, but actually be young?

USincognito · Oct 31, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
billion year old schist? don't believe billion year old exists. Listen, I've looked at the fact that it twists and turns. I don' think that proves that it isn't a single event at all. You said it like it was some new evidence. It's not. Just a different way of saying the same thing.

As others have pointed out, plug your ears and say "la la la" and that does not make the fact that we have known accretion rates for various strata like the Vishnu Schist, and wishing it were lain down and cut during the Flood won't make that go away.

And handwaving away the issue of the bends in the Colorado as it passes through the Grand Canyon doesn't make the fact that a Flood wouldn't create such twists and turns in it go away. How about actually addressing why a meandering Grand Canyon is produced by a sudden violent Flood through hardened strata like the Vishnu Schist rather than a relatively straight wash away of looser topsoil than floods actually produce?

We know the sedimentation rates of strata.
We know the erosion rates of strata.
Neither confirms a single Flood event 4,000 years ago creating the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls or any other geologic feature on the Earth's surface.

USincognito · Oct 31, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
I didn't say anything about the above.

Actually, yes you did. By denying modern geology, you're claiming all of the things I mentioned are the case.

Uphill Battle said:
...you brought it up, I didn't say this was subjective. I see the evidence of the way things are now the same as you do. Things are operating at a certain rate NOW. the difference is, I don't believe they always were. you do.

Astounding. Do words not mean anything in YEC land? You're claiming that the evidence looks different to you than it people who realize the items I mentioned indicate an old Earth, and that your subjective interpretation of that evidence means that limestone formed and eroded at a different rate for no other reason than your personal beliefs, etc. and somehow that's not being subjective?

I continue to be amazed at YECs who claim to reject post-modernism, but embrace it so tightly when it comes to things they see with their own eyes.

Uphill Battle · Oct 31, 2005

USincognito said:
As others have pointed out, plug your ears and say "la la la" and that does not make the fact that we have known accretion rates for various strata like the Vishnu Schist, and wishing it were lain down and cut during the Flood won't make that go away.

And handwaving away the issue of the bends in the Colorado as it passes through the Grand Canyon doesn't make the fact that a Flood wouldn't create such twists and turns in it go away. How about actually addressing why a meandering Grand Canyon is produced by a sudden violent Flood through hardened strata like the Vishnu Schist rather than a relatively straight wash away of looser topsoil than floods actually produce?

We know the sedimentation rates of strata.
We know the erosion rates of strata.
Neither confirms a single Flood event 4,000 years ago creating the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls or any other geologic feature on the Earth's surface.

your right. Neither confimrs a sing flood event. Neither does it confirm that it took eons to produce either.

you know what you believe to be sediment rates, based on what you see today.
ditto erosion rates. That however is a fallacy as well. Did the colorado river always flow at the same rate? How do you know it did? Only because it flows at a certain rate today?

Uphill Battle · Oct 31, 2005

USincognito said:
Actually, yes you did. By denying modern geology, you're claiming all of the things I mentioned are the case.

Astounding. Do words not mean anything in YEC land? You're claiming that the evidence looks different to you than it people who realize the items I mentioned indicate an old Earth, and that your subjective interpretation of that evidence means that limestone formed and eroded at a different rate for no other reason than your personal beliefs, etc. and somehow that's not being subjective?

I continue to be amazed at YECs who claim to reject post-modernism, but embrace it so tightly when it comes to things they see with their own eyes.

the subjective part was about appearance, not about evidence. when asked... does the world look billions of years old to you... I would answer no. It is subjective. It has squat to do with empirical evidence. I thought that was clearly established.

Beastt · Oct 31, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
the subjective part was about appearance, not about evidence. when asked... does the world look billions of years old to you... I would answer no. It is subjective. It has squat to do with empirical evidence. I thought that was clearly established.

Appearance is the essence of the visually observed and it is classified as evidence.

TeddyKGB · Oct 31, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
Did the colorado river always flow at the same rate? How do you know it did? Only because it flows at a certain rate today?

You are surely joking.

Uphill Battle · Oct 31, 2005

Beastt said:
Appearance is the essence of the visually observed and it is classified as evidence.

ah, but is everything as it appears?

Uphill Battle · Oct 31, 2005

TeddyKGB said:
You are surely joking.

no, I am not. To assume the amount of sediments laid down by the colorado river, you would have to assume it always flowed with a relatively consistant rate. Can you say that with any certainty?

TeddyKGB · Oct 31, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
no, I am not. To assume the amount of sediments laid down by the colorado river, you would have to assume it always flowed with a relatively consistant rate. Can you say that with any certainty?

No, but it does not matter. Sedimentation rate is only tangentially related to rate of flow. You have to increase carrying capacity to absurd proportions to get where you are trying to go.

In any case, we were talking about meanders. Do you have any idea what the difference in flow rate must be to get from 5 million down to 6000 years? Talk about absurdity.

Uphill Battle · Oct 31, 2005

TeddyKGB said:
No, but it does not matter. Sedimentation rate is only tangentially related to rate of flow. You have to increase carrying capacity to absurd proportions to get where you are trying to go.

In any case, we were talking about meanders. Do you have any idea what the difference in flow rate must be to get from 5 million down to 6000 years? Talk about absurdity.

somewhere in the range of a whole world full of water, I'd wager.

tangentially? So if the colorado slowed to a trickle for a space of say, 50 years... how would you know?

TeddyKGB · Oct 31, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
somewhere in the range of a whole world full of water, I'd wager.

Forty-day deluges do not create the kinds of meanders seen in the Grand Canyon no matter how much of a head of steam they can work up.

There is no X to which you can blindly appeal and say, "maybe X was different in the past" here. It is either a miracle or 5 million years of erosion. Take your pick.

tangentially? So if the colorado slowed to a trickle for a space of say, 50 years... how would you know?

My comment had nothing to do with the flow rate itself but with how much flow rate affects sedimentation.

nvxplorer · Oct 31, 2005

Uphill Battle said:
somewhere in the range of a whole world full of water, I'd wager.

Lets ignore the specific implications of a worldwide flood. How long did it rain? Forty days, correct? Ketchikan, Alaska recieves almost 300 days of rain every year. Sometimes as much as 18 ft. per year. Thats certainly not comparable to a forty-day worldwide flood, but if this amount of rain has been falling for 6000 years, why do we not see a grand canyon in the Alaskan panhandle?

Uphill Battle · Oct 31, 2005

TeddyKGB said:
Forty-day deluges do not create the kinds of meanders seen in the Grand Canyon no matter how much of a head of steam they can work up.

There is no X to which you can blindly appeal and say, "maybe X was different in the past" here. It is either a miracle or 5 million years of erosion. Take your pick.

My comment had nothing to do with the flow rate itself but with how much flow rate affects sedimentation.

how do you know? Do you know exactly what effect a worldwide deluge would create... not only raining, but water "from the deep?"

right. You say it doesn't affect it much. But the point remains, how do you know the river did NOT dry up to an almost imperceptible amount for a period of time?

Uphill Battle · Oct 31, 2005

nvxplorer said:
Lets ignore the specific implications of a worldwide flood. How long did it rain? Forty days, correct? Ketchikan, Alaska recieves almost 300 days of rain every year. Sometimes as much as 18 ft. per year. Thats certainly not comparable to a forty-day worldwide flood, but if this amount of rain has been falling for 6000 years, why do we not see a grand canyon in the Alaskan panhandle?

good question. don't know. I don't know the actual amount of water that WAS present during the deluge. I don't propose to know. But uniformitism proposes to know how much water has flowed through the grand canyon for X amount of time.

What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Greyhounds as pets

Veteran

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Well-Known Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency