Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Because God's own creation does not conform to what God supposedly dictated.

Click to expand...

How so?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Again, the fact that God's own creation does not conform to what God supposedly dictated heavily shows that the Bible is, while inspired by God, not written or dictated by God.

My favourite example is getting striped goats from placing them in front of striped rods before breeding.

Click to expand...

You believe that this story of Jacob - how God helped him to receive even more gain from his conniving father-in-law who had deceived him - is somehow a claim that this method should work at all times and places?

I assume you would also claim that the Bible prescribed that all lepers should wash themselves in the River Jordan seven times in order to be cured - like He did for Naaman?

Or is it not possible that God can at times assist His faithful in ways that seem to us to defy the natural laws of our world?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Why would I need to 'go to God and His word' to point out that since miracles can explain anything, miracles are worthless as an explanation. If you can explain anything by one single thing, then there is no point in inquiry or even knowledge.e

Click to expand...

The term "miracle" can mean anything that is beyond our ability to prove or verify - that does not mean that God cannot reveal aspects of His works - how He Lawfully operates - to those who sincerely and humbly seek to know.

It seems like you don't actually want to know - but would rather use this as an excuse to reject God's Word.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I'm under no obligation to explain why, especially when it's a seriously off-topic comment.

Click to expand...

You were the one who asked for the explanation, and it is directly related to the topic of why we cannot prove God and His ways through the scientific method.

I am going to assume that you do not have an actual reason to disagree. You just did not want to engage because it gave you the "ick" or "bad vibes".

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Because the Bible is not a history book. Simple as. This thread actually talks about it by showing that there is no evidence for a global flood as described in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The genealogies in the Old Testament were referenced to link the Lord Jesus Christ all the way to Adam - and the Lord referenced many of the people and events in the Old Testament as if they were real people and events in history.

And since the Holy Spirit has confirmed to my mind and heart that the Lord Jesus Christ lived and that He taught truth....

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

The Holy Spirit confirms a belief in God, which is true for Christians but not true for others, while studying the earth can or cannot convince a person of coming to Christ. That's up to the person.

Click to expand...

Then you do not agree with me at all.

I claimed that the Holy Spirit confirms truth - not belief. And truth is not subjective.

I also claimed that no study of the Earth can convince a person of the truth of God.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I've yet to see any 'truth' from the Bible or people who take the Bible literally about the physical world.

Click to expand...

I mean - you say that - but you also said that you had no need to go to God and His Word when it came to the study of miracles.

I am left doubting if you actually know the Word of God - at least enough to make any such claim about it.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Spiritual matters are a whole different thing entirely and also not conducive to the thread topic since it's an off-topic conversation.

Click to expand...

I disagree because they explain why God does what He does - so why the scientific method cannot prove or disprove the Word of God.

Astrid said:

much is “ explained” by hyper -evolution.

Click to expand...

Not only are your origins from Genghis Khan and mine from Ivan the Terrible but according to creationists we are closely related although I doubt there would be much physical resemblance.

Hans Blaster said:

What does belief have to do with any of this? (And you continued deflection from actual information about the actual dating of the Missoula floods [the actual subject of this thread] is quite telling.)

Click to expand...

I already discussed those hypotheses.
What else do you want to talk about?

Hans Blaster said:

What you are doing is just claiming (without evidence) that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate.

Click to expand...

Those quotes were not evidence? What were they?

Hans Blaster said:

The bible is irrelevant to this topic.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the Bible is the source of the account of the Global Flood.
The topic of this thread is...

Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?​

Hans Blaster said:

The thing about this recalibration of the radiocarbon dating is that it is something they keep doing to make it better. They do it to get better and more accurate results from radiocarbon. They do it to incorporate more information. This recalibration doesn't move the radiocarbon originated dates related to the Missoula floods. There is a reason dates are typically given in "radiocarbon years" when reporting a measurement and that is because the calibrations do change (between radiocarbon years and actual years) and when there is a new calibration, earlier published dates can be quickly translated with the new calibration.

Click to expand...

So there is radiocarbon originated dates related to the Missoula floods?
I thought so.

Hans Blaster said:

This isn't about how I feel. I have seen many a person attack a result, method, paper, dataset, or even a whole field of science because the conclusions from it challenged their personally held beliefs in politics, theology, or philosophy. You are not the first nor (sadly) will you be the last. I am well aware of the limitations of science generally and have some understanding about the limits of radiocarbon dating. I know the difference between an honest critique and an ideologically motivated attack.

Click to expand...

I think you believe you do, and you probably sincerely believe, but being sincere does not mean one is right, and I know you are not right.
I'm not going to try to convince you of that though... The argument would continue, until you have the final word.

Hans Blaster said:

See there you go again.

Click to expand...

Doing what? Stating facts? What's wrong with that?

Hans Blaster said:

You have already linked the papers that demonstrate that you are wrong. You could respond to my criticism of your selection by trying to show that I am wrong about one of those papers, but instead you post a few more "examples" of how radiocarbon is "wrong". Pick one of the articles or papers you posted and I commented about and reply to my comments on them using the contents of the paper/article in question. That's what you could do if you want an actual discussion of your claim.

Click to expand...

You did not comment on the papers. You picked bits of things to comment on.
That is not addressing my overall point, which I mentioned a number of times.
I see no reason why I should have to repost any one of those I already posted.

Hans Blaster said:

I have been well aware of this for a quarter century.

An interesting article and result, but it has nothing to do with the reliability of radiocarbon dating. The main result is about tracing the eating range of the mammoth through the variations of non-carbon isotopes deposited in the tusk as the mammoth ate in places with different isotopic ratios in the soil and deposited those elements in the tusk as it grew.

Click to expand...

I think that is the problem.
What is the point of my referring to the article?
It seems you are not interested in that... as though everything must be on what you want to talk about.

The point is most... or should I say, many scientists do not take a dogmatic approach on their findings, like some people do, and yes, this becomes about individuals' worldview, when they refuse to listen to anything else, but a closed-minded view.

Hans Blaster said:

This is why I don't like to use the word "believe" at all in anything I publish.

Click to expand...

What word do you prefer to use?

Hans Blaster said:

Atheists have nothing to do with this. It isn't about who believes in god or not. Don't try to make it so.

Click to expand...

When our worldviews get in the way, yes, it does become about us, and you did make it so, a few comment above.

I have seen many a person attack a result, method, paper, dataset, or even a whole field of science because the conclusions from it challenged their personally held beliefs in politics, theology, or philosophy. You are not the first nor (sadly) will you be the last.

Click to expand...

So, there is no need for us to pretend.
We both have a fight in this.

On the subject of evolution, the next step in evolution not necessarily human but AI took a shot at some of the exchanges in this thread.
It (GPT-4o) was asked to provide a humorous interpretation of the exchange.
I let it decide how it was to proceed..............

GPT-4o made it very clear who was joke was on, it provided me with its Python code which I ran to reveal it had cast the interpretation in the form of a flowchart.


In the next post it explains the flowchart in terms of one of the exchanges.

In this post Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood? between @Hans Blaster and @CoreyD, GPT-4o demonstrates how the flowchart applies.

sjastro said:

Not only are your origins from Genghis Khan and mine from Ivan the Terrible but according to creationists we are closely related although I doubt there would be much physical resemblance.

Click to expand...

I’m about 150 cm, straight black hair dark brown eyes…all very predictable.
And sinodont.

I’m guessing Ivan the terrible disresembled me.

This post seems to be where you entered this part of the discussion. It was in reply to an AI summary posted by @dlamberth

In response to this post, you have had posted for your information a lecture about the dating of the floods. A link to an organization interested in the floods has also been posted. In furtherance of the information here is the wikipedia article about the floods which contains many references within:

Missoula floods - Wikipedia

The dates given for the floods are from approximately 15,000 to 13,000 years ago with numerous floods separated by dozens of years.

CoreyD said:

Can you please elaborate on what clues about the timing and frequency, gave a timing of 10,000 years ago?

Click to expand...

Since you've been given the links, we won't worry about this one.

CoreyD said:

How can studying layers lead to the conclusion it fits 10,000 years ago and not 5,000 years ago?
Seems like a small difference, to me.

Click to expand...

5000 versus 10000 is not a small difference. It is half, or double, (depending on your perspective). Nothing in evidence suggests that the Missoula floods are even possibly only 5000 years ago.

CoreyD said:

I have been reading that studies show radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, and can be out by 1,000 years and more.
Climate change also adds to inaccuracies.

Click to expand...

Since we have multiple posts about radiocarbon, I won't elaborate here, but I will note that compared to the 15,000 to 13,000 years given by various methods for the floods, a 1000 year difference is small and does not get even close to 5000 years ago.

CoreyD said:

I was doing some research on Ice Core Data, and read that...
The weight above layers of ice, can make deeper layers of ice thin and these layers then flow outwards. This distortion of layers, would result is inaccurate data.

I also read for the results of these tests to be useful in the reconstruction of palaeoenvironments, there has to be a way to determine the relationship between depth and age of the ice. The simplest approach is to count layers of ice that correspond to the original annual layers of snow, but this is not always possible. An alternative is to model the ice accumulation and flow to predict how long it takes a given snowfall to reach a particular depth. Another method is to correlate radionuclides or trace atmospheric gases with other timescales such as periodicities in the earth's orbital parameters.

A difficulty in ice core dating is that gases can diffuse through firn, so the ice at a given depth may be substantially older than the gases trapped in it. As a result, there are two chronologies for a given ice core: one for the ice, and one for the trapped gases. To determine the relationship between the two, models have been developed for the depth at which gases are trapped for a given location, but their predictions have not always proved reliable. At locations with very low snowfall, such as Vostok, the uncertainty in the difference between ages of ice and gas can be over 1,000 years.

Radiocarbon dating is also used.
So, there is the possibility for the dating to be inaccurate.

Click to expand...

Again, we are talking about *maybe* 1000 years. (And where do you think they measure the climate with ice cores for the PNW, Vostok in Antartica, or perhaps in Greenland?) 1000 years is not going to shift the Missoula floods anywhere near the 5000 years ago you seem to be focused on.

CoreyD said:

If the last glacial period was about 5,000 years ago, how would you know that by comparison with other events?

Click to expand...

It wasn't. The last glacial period ended 11700 years ago.

CoreyD said:

Would you consider, or approximately 4,500 years ago considering the above?

Click to expand...

That's even more recent. It is about 2000 years after the invention of writing and 100 years after the completion of the Great Pyramid of Khufu on the Giza plateau. Not in the ice age.

Astrid said:

I’m about 150 cm, straight black hair dark brown eyes…all very predictable.
And sinodont.

I’m guessing Ivan the terrible disresembled me.

Click to expand...

There is a clear physical resemblance, to a blind person perhaps.
Ivan's claim to fame apart from being terrible, he is the first example of forensic facial reconstruction from his skull by Soviet scientists in 1963 as shown.

dlamberth said:

Wow, a short lady.

Click to expand...

x- tra petite, s’il vous plait!

sjastro said:

There is a clear physical resemblance, to a blind person perhaps.
Ivan's claim to fame apart from being terrible, he is the first example of forensic facial reconstruction from his skull by Soviet scientists in 1963 as shown.

View attachment 356317
​

Click to expand...

I read a book about Ivan TT.

Astrid said:

x- tra petite, s’il vous plait!

Click to expand...

Thank goodness you don't look like Ivan.

LOL

You want Ivan the Terrible?

HERE's Ivan the Terrible:

Astrid said:

Please explain this word “ glorification “?

Click to expand...

By glorification, I mean a local flood was glorified as a global flood.

AV1611VET said:

Are you implying there was no global flood?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am saying clearly that there was no global flood. In fact, there is not enough water in the ice caps to raise the level of sea to submerge the mountains.

Astrid said:

Car chases happen too. So ”Casino Royale” is not fiction?

Best to drop that line of reasoning.

Its an unevidenced assertion that “Noah’s Ark“ is based
on any actual event, so, IMO, best not to state it as fact.
Best to drop that claim.


It could be a wildly exaggerated story based on one or
more floods.

it can’t be a true story of real event.

You did not say what parts you select as
having been “ glorified” other than “global”!

Or how even one detail makes any sense
if it’s just one valley gets wet for a while,

Where is the glory in bearing false witness against God?

Click to expand...

The fact that it is unevidenced does not mean that it was false. All I am saying is that the geographical descriptions in the Bible can be read as a local flood. And that would make more sense than thinking about a global flood. I agree with you that it could be a wildly exaggerated story or based on one such local flood.

David Lamb said:

But many Christians do believe that the flood of Noah's day was worldwide. That doesn't mean they "glorify" the flood. Surely all Christians believe that Jesus was crucified, but they don't glorify crucifixion.

Click to expand...

I think we should not quibble about words on social forums. All I am saying is that the local flood was presented as a global flood. Whether we call it glorification or not is not relevant.

common prophets said:

I think we should not quibble about words on social forums. All I am saying is that the local flood was presented as a global flood. Whether we call it glorification or not is not relevant.

Click to expand...

But words have meanings. Believing something is not the same as glorifying it. I believe that the bible teaches (or presents us with) a worldwide flood, but I don't glorify a worldwide flood. Words do matter.

common prophets said:

Yes, I am saying clearly that there was no global flood. In fact, there is not enough water in the ice caps to raise the level of sea to submerge the mountains.

Click to expand...

Where do you read anything in the biblical accounts about ice caps melting? Genesis talks of the "windows of heaven" and the "fountains of the great deep", not melting ice.

David Lamb said:

But words have meanings. Believing something is not the same as glorifying it. I believe that the bible teaches (or presents us with) a worldwide flood, but I don't glorify a worldwide flood. Words do matter.

Click to expand...

You've never heard the word glorify used in this metaphorical way?

E.g., a Genesis is a glorified Hyundai.

I believe that was all that was meant.