Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[Fallen Prophet]

Yes, “attributed”, which mean people ASSUME OR BELIEVE that he was the “author” of those books and those stories.

But “attributed” doesn’t mean he was actual real “author”.

Correct.

You said most of my previous post were irrelevant, you wrote...



...but you are missing the points.

My points that not only the Genesis Flood was a myth and that it never happened in the way Genesis narrated Noah’s story; that Moses himself was also a myth.

And if Moses is a myth (as well as his “supposed” life story), then so him being attributed to be the “author” of those books are also fictional, invented.

You are making assumptions that Moses is real.

But the only existence of literary evidence that these books exist, post-dated during Josiah’s reign or later. No such books existed in the Late Bronze Age.

So if Moses didn’t write the Flood story, then really it is pointless to ask who was Moses’ “sources”.

Sorry - but the portion after "you wrote..." was blank for me up until "...but you are missing the points."

I am also having difficulty finding the post where I said your previous post was irrelevant.

I do remember that post though - I just didn't find it during my skimming of the thread - so if you could tell me which post it was I'd appreciate it.

In these kinds of discussions neither of our beliefs - yours or mine - concerning Noah and Moses or whatever are just not relevant.

I may argue from the point of view that they were real individuals - because I believe that side of the argument should always be represented - but I have often shared my questions and doubts about the Biblical record.

That being said - I have yet to see any verifiable and undeniable evidence that either proves or disproves the existence of Noah or Moses.

I personally do not believe there will ever be any evidence for either side. It will always be a subject of belief.

I don’t who wrote Genesis, but it came from possibly many hands. For instances, there seems to be multiple different authors to the 2 creation stories - Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 & 3.

For instance, in Genesis 1 it say humans were made last, so that plants and vegetation and animals were created before there were humans. But in Genesis 2, it say god created Adam before there were vegetation and before there were animals. Two different orders of creation, which tell me there are two different myths.

I am of the opinion that Genesis 1 is describing different events than the second and third chapters.

The first chapter is describing a spiritual formation or organization of things that are soon to take physical form.

I'd love to explain my reasoning behind this - but I fear that they would fall on deaf ears.

If you are interested - I'll share.

And flood stories, there seemed to be multiple authors of 2 different versions Flood. For instance, did the Flood rained for 40 days or 150 days?

It is my understanding of the text that the Genesis account claims that it rained for forty days - yet the flood waters were upon the Earth for 150 consecutive days.

Genesis 8 claims that,

"And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." (Genesis 8:3-4)

Both creation and flood have some contradictory details, because they are trying to enmeshed multiple myths into one book.

This is your understanding - but from a differing viewpoint - they meshed well.

Anyway, I think Moses was invented character, where king Josiah tried to promote monotheism by having scribes invent a national “history”, which persisted after the fall of Jerusalem, hence an origin story that never happened.

I can neither confirm or deny this - but I have reason to believe otherwise.

 

[SA Huguenot]

So Mount Everest started forming for about 65 million years ago. The homosapiens are estimated to be around 200 thousand years old give or take. But humans were on the Earth before the flood, so Mount Everest must have been created in that short period after the flood?

Dating Mountains are done by radio actuve decay.
I dont have a problem with the Earth and matter of the earth being billions of years old.
All that is dated is the radiodecay of layers of rock that uplifted during and after Noah's flood.
Furthermore, top layers on all the mountains contains marine fossils that is evidence of upliftment during a catastrophy unknown in modern times.
Dating Lava rocks is also very difficuilt, and it is a fact that many dating practices relies on assistance by the geologist 'sestimation on the date he supposed it might be. R.A.T.E. made thousands of Ratio Isotope dating on lava at hawai, and they did not disclose the date from the source, and the tests were so inconclusive that it gave results from 3 000 to 150 000 years from the same source. This whilst the lava flow dated less than a couple of years.

Anyhow, the top layer of sediment might contain plantlefe etc, and c 14 tests will give dates in excess of 25 000 years, but once we check the bible and fins that there was very little C14 in the atmosphere 4500 years ago, C14 tests actually attests the ages to be less than 6 000 years.

Do you know that the oldest Zircon cristals found in Australia gave 2 discoveries that science never know about?
1. The Earth was wet when it took shape.
2. The Helium in Zircon crystals suggested an age less than 10 000 years.

 

[SA Huguenot]

he homosapiens are estimated to be around 200 thousand years old give or take.

I like that you put the word "estimate" in this sentence.
How does one test the age of a fossilised bone?
You cant.
You go to the rocks and get the date from the estimated age due to dates preconceived by Geologists from the Geologic column.
How does one get the age from the rocks in the geologic column?
You look at the index fossils in that specific rock.
The index fossils will first be starting with "Simple" animals and as you envision the newer layers on top of each other will step from animals such as mullusks, trillobites, crustacia, fish, amphibeans, reptiles, dinosaurs, and eventually mamals.

Now, the Creationist's view that a global flood spread sediment over huge areas and entombed these animals in their habitat, is a much better explanation of why fossils are found on top of each other the way we find them.
The later explanation is something Evolutionists hates to accept, but again, id depends on what bias you prefer. And with the C14 proving that all lifeforms on earth can not be older than 6000 years, I think the creationists are one ahead of the evolutionists.
But we will come to c 14 a bit later.

 

[joelr]

Dating Mountains are done by radio actuve decay.
I dont have a problem with the Earth and matter of the earth being billions of years old.
All that is dated is the radiodecay of layers of rock that uplifted during and after Noah's flood.
Furthermore, top layers on all the mountains contains marine fossils that is evidence of upliftment during a catastrophy unknown in modern times.
Dating Lava rocks is also very difficuilt, and it is a fact that many dating practices relies on assistance by the geologist 'sestimation on the date he supposed it might be. R.A.T.E. made thousands of Ratio Isotope dating on lava at hawai, and they did not disclose the date from the source, and the tests were so inconclusive that it gave results from 3 000 to 150 000 years from the same source. This whilst the lava flow dated less than a couple of years.

Anyhow, the top layer of sediment might contain plantlefe etc, and c 14 tests will give dates in excess of 25 000 years, but once we check the bible and fins that there was very little C14 in the atmosphere 4500 years ago, C14 tests actually attests the ages to be less than 6 000 years.

Do you know that the oldest Zircon cristals found in Australia gave 2 discoveries that science never know about?
1. The Earth was wet when it took shape.
2. The Helium in Zircon crystals suggested an age less than 10 000 years.

National Center for Science Education compiled a list of common creationist complaints about C14 and debunks them here:
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | National Center for Science Education
Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | National Center for Science Education


There are several mistakes made in that study on Zircon, I have found several papers detailing them. Do you just believe creationist material without seeing if it's been debunked?

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/henke.pdf



Had all animals and insects emerged from the Middle East 4000 years ago then the distribution patters would be emerging from that point. Yet most mammals are in places across oceans and completely unlikely locations.
Do you believe every "kind" of animal was on the Arc or every species? Was it in pairs or sevens?

 

[SA Huguenot]

And we have evidence of this? How did anyone survive this animals and humans?

They Didnot, Thats the point.
I think everyone has this nice bathtub filled flood in mind when they think about Noah's flood.
Well, this is far from the truth, it was acatrastrophy on global levels which were not to be seen again.
And over the past 20 years, more and more evidence are discovered by scientists, and they dont even know they are supporting the Biblical description.
My first statement was, the earth cracked open, releasing billions of qubic miles of water.
since the 1930's, scientists realised that there are continental drift, but they thought it was always there, now they realised the Earth CRACKED open!

Listen to the latest science.
"Earth would quickly transform from a water world studded with Iceland-like volcanic islands into a world of continents with mountains, rivers and floodplains, lakes, and shallow sea"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/scie...ths-crust-cracked-then-came-to-life-20210325/

Interesting.
Take into consideration that Kola and seismic observations in China proved that the interior of the earth has huge oceans of water contained into and beloe the crust of the earth, I think the scientific descriptions is slowly but surely moving to the Genesis description.

 

[SA Huguenot]

If the whole Earth crust collapse in on itself, I would expect a complete extinction of all life and most likely Earth would be one huge inferno. With steam from the water being so hot that it would cook everything alive that weren't killed in the initial collapse of the crust. How many years do you think it would take for Earth to recover from this, if ever? Given that humans are not especially old, the Earth should have recovered from such thing in far less than 200000 years, to have time to create all the rainforests, new plant life. And all the oil in the ground, which apparently take around 50 million years to form, why weren't that expelled with supersonic speed into space?

Nope, Laboratory experiments showed that coal can be produced in less than 2 weeks using pure naturalistic methods such as preassure and heat.
lets see, we have masses of plantmaterial floating on the ocean hundreds of meters deep, which got caught under layers of sediment, and heat from preassure and interior from the earth compressing this plant matter down into coal and oil. This is the way science describes the formation of oill and Coal, but they use millions of years to account for their thinking that the geologic column took that long to form.
Well, if the ceological column took one year to form, with a global flood, no problem.
And yes, nothing survived, save Noah and the ark.
And yes, lots of heat, snow, water etc.
Why will it take 200000 years for the earth to recover?
Nature is much more virulent than what you think it is.

Think about this.
at Kola fossils were found 7000 down deep in the earth.
If the scientists wants to date using depth as their measurement, the earths' 4.5 billion year date is too low.
But using a catastrophy where the wholce earth was uprooted, water released from the interior of the crust, sediment covering the ecology and preserving it for us to learn how the earth looked before the flood, then the date of life of 6 000 years is quite correct.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What is id? You mean sd, right?

Sorry, typo, "IF"

 

[SA Huguenot]

Off course, science doesn't make such "assumptions". The conclusions of science are the result of rigorous study, research, experimentation, testing, re-testing, etc etc etc and thus supported by a boatload of objective independently verifiable evidence.

The bible.... is not.
That's just plain assumptions. More often then not in contradiction with all the eivdence that supports contradicting the scientific conclusions instead.

Yip!
Then the Atheist tries to use science to prove the Bible wrong.
Thats where the Christian Bible believer goes out and check for themself, find that what science says, was written in the Bible long before they discovered their facts.
I love the Bible for just that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yip!
Then the Atheist tries to use science to prove the Bible wrong.

One doesn't need to try very hard to do that.
It's pretty much self-evident for anyone who isn't scientifically illiterate.

Thats where the Christian Bible believer goes out and check for themself, find that what science says, was written in the Bible long before they discovered their facts.
I love the Bible for just that.

This is just delusional.

PS: I have yet to meet a biblical creationist (aka, an evolution denier) who actually has a basic grasp on the most fundamental evolutionary principles. Every creationist I have ever conversed with, had knowledge of evolution on par with a 7-year old.

 

[Nimos]

Dating Mountains are done by radio actuve decay.
I dont have a problem with the Earth and matter of the earth being billions of years old.
All that is dated is the radiodecay of layers of rock that uplifted during and after Noah's flood.
Furthermore, top layers on all the mountains contains marine fossils that is evidence of upliftment during a catastrophy unknown in modern times.
Dating Lava rocks is also very difficuilt, and it is a fact that many dating practices relies on assistance by the geologist 'sestimation on the date he supposed it might be. R.A.T.E. made thousands of Ratio Isotope dating on lava at hawai, and they did not disclose the date from the source, and the tests were so inconclusive that it gave results from 3 000 to 150 000 years from the same source. This whilst the lava flow dated less than a couple of years.

Anyhow, the top layer of sediment might contain plantlefe etc, and c 14 tests will give dates in excess of 25 000 years, but once we check the bible and fins that there was very little C14 in the atmosphere 4500 years ago, C14 tests actually attests the ages to be less than 6 000 years.

Do you know that the oldest Zircon cristals found in Australia gave 2 discoveries that science never know about?
1. The Earth was wet when it took shape.
2. The Helium in Zircon crystals suggested an age less than 10 000 years.

They use different methods for dating things, C14 according to Wiki at least, doesn't work well beyond 60000 years and not for all things, which is why they use different method. Which you can look up.

How does one test the age of a fossilised bone?
You cant.....
The later explanation is something Evolutionists hates to accept, but again, id depends on what bias you prefer. And with the C14 proving that all lifeforms on earth can not be older than 6000 years, I think the creationists are one ahead of the evolutionists.

From what I can see the same way as they do everything else:

Today, scientists use a variety of techniques to date rocks and fossils precisely. Most often, they measure the amounts of particular radioactive elements—often radiocarbon or potassium—present to determine when a rock was formed, or when an animal or plant died. Some techniques work best with materials millions or even billions of years old. Others only work for much younger materials. And each method only works for certain materials, ranging from volcanic rock to charcoal to bone.

Listen to the latest science.
"Earth would quickly transform from a water world studded with Iceland-like volcanic islands into a world of continents with mountains, rivers and floodplains, lakes, and shallow sea"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/scie...ths-crust-cracked-then-came-to-life-20210325/

They Didnot, Thats the point.

You are talking something that happened billions of years ago over a period of millions and millions of years. And life were there before as stated below.

The team’s analysis of tungsten isotopes in the rocks reveals Earth in the act of transitioning to plate tectonics around 3.2 billion years ago.

The start date of roughly 3.2 billion years ago helps clarify how plate tectonics impacted life on Earth.

Life started beforehand, more than 3.9 billion years ago, and was making hummocky little stacks in sediments at Pilbara called stromatolites by 3.48 billion years ago. This shows that plate tectonics isn’t a prerequisite for life at its most basic level. Yet it’s probably no coincidence that life diversified just as plate tectonics got underway.

With plate tectonics came shallow sunlit seas and lakes fertilized with nutrients weathered from continental rock. Bacteria evolved in these environments to harvest sunlight through photosynthesis, generating oxygen.

For another half-billion years, this oxygen remained barely a whiff in the sky, partly because it immediately reacted with iron and other chemicals. Also, every oxygen molecule generated in photosynthesis is matched by a carbon atom, and these easily recombine into carbon dioxide with no net gain of oxygen in the atmosphere, unless the carbon is buried.

Gradually, though, plate tectonics provided the land and sediments in which to bury more and more of the carbon (while also providing plenty of phosphorus to stimulate photosynthetic bacteria). The atmosphere eventually oxygenated 2.4 billion years ago.

Oxygen set the planet up for the emergence of plants, animals and almost everything else with an oxygen-based metabolism. Life larger and more complex than microbes requires more energy, and organisms can make much more of the vital, energy-carrying molecule called ATP with oxygen than they can without it. “Oxygen is really important for what we think of as complex life,” said Athena Eyster of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Well, if the ceological column took one year to form, with a global flood, no problem.
And yes, nothing survived, save Noah and the ark.
And yes, lots of heat, snow, water etc.
Why will it take 200000 years for the earth to recover?
Nature is much more virulent than what you think it is.

Neither humans or Noah's ark, was there at this time. Humans are not billions of years old.

Nope, Laboratory experiments showed that coal can be produced in less than 2 weeks using pure naturalistic methods such as preassure and heat.

But what does it matter how long it takes to make coal, if it takes about 50 million years to make oil?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I especially lol'ed at the statements about how dino's apparantly weren't able to walk on land how you think every mountain taller then 500m has appeared in the last couple thousand years.

Absolutely hilarious.

It is not nice if you speak so sarcastic to me, a poor old christian.
Dont you feel any empathy to my situation?
How will I go to sleep tonight thinking you think my observations are funny.
I also have feelings.

Anyhow, why would you say that the biggest and tallest animals ever to live on the Earth would be able to have a mass 10 times larger than an elephant, and will be able to carry its mass?
Have you never read the evidence "too big to walk" by Brian J Ford?

Now if you want to see something verry funny, check out his videos where he mocks paleontologists who believes these animals did live on land.
You see, if I as a christian take the Biblical view that the Earth was created from a collection of water and solids, where the water and Ice was caught up in the inner layers of the earth, such as Kola proved, then I have a sound understanding on how the earth appeared in its infancy.
The whole landmass was covered with wet marchlands and swamps, with huge lakes. Plantlife was everywhere, mountains still did bot exist, where would they have come from anyhow, there was no continental drift due to it still being soft and moist.
As the earth dried more, and solids settled to form harder rocks, the earth's crust cracked, and subduction and uplift occured creating the Mountains we see today.
Please take note, what I say is well known established scientific facts, and the onlu difference between you and I are our viewpoint where I understand the Global flood as the mechanism that created the geology we see today, you want to place it on a theory of Billions of years. Well, what would then create the Himalyas if not this catastrophy.
If ever you see the Drakensberg in South Africa, you will easily deduct that these high pinnacles reaching into the sky for over 500 kilometers in width, was due to rock, which was laid down horisontally once, now stands errect and was done due to landmasses pushing onto each other.

Now, how did marine fossils get to the top?
Easy, that rock was originally subdued in water.

There is no evidence that it took the Drakens Mountains billions of years to erode to stand out in its surroundings.
Now, telling any person that these huge Dinosaurs were not aquatic, swamp living animals because we saw how the BBC depicted them, and believing that the Mountains on earth somehow were always as we see them now, that is realy ridicilous indeed.
Science does not say any of that.

 

[SA Huguenot]

So from which apologetic con-man did you get all this nonsense?
Kent Hovind or alike?

No, I love to read scientific websites, and then look at what they discover and ask myself why this sounds so biblical.

Now why would you go to the "Kent Hovind argument" as if that will place some question on my simple observations from scientists.
What if I were to ask:
From what Atheist con-man did you get this nonsense? Richear Dawkins or alike?

Do you think that it will prove to you that your point of view is stupid if I were to use such an argument?
I will not act in such a demeaning manner. First of all, I have too much respect for your right to question my point of view, and second of all, it is much more valuable to discuss such facts, than to demean you with nonsensical accusations.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I see what you did there.
You tried to use basic elementary scientific facts to counter this amazing spaghetti of apologetic nonsense.
I'm afraid that your effort will be in vain, but you know that, I'm sure.

Yyaaah, You tell him.

Then again, I think TagliatelliMonster missed out on the fact that I said it did not rain, because there was a thick mist throughout the whole atmosphere and refraction of light did not occure before the flood.
But then he went and looked at a waterfall and noticed the waterspray creating a rainbow.
Oh, but he forgot, the sun did not shine as it does today, and there propably was no waterfalls on the earth, because there was no mountains.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Exactly..... this reminds me of some documentary I once say, of a geologist who was taking 3 YECs on a trip through sites in the USA to show them how wrong they are. The docu was actually some sort of experiment to see just how closed of to evidence those people were.

At one point during the show, they were once again stuck in an endless "debate" of the geologists spewing facts at them, while the kept handwaving them away with either completely ignorant "counters" or by invoking "miracles". This time, the topic was the ark.

The geologist got tired of repeatedly showing them with math who the entire thing is obvious nonsense. Math involving the amount of room they would have required for the animals, the amount of food they would have needed, the amount of droppings they would have had to dispose of DAILY, etc...

At some point, he got so fed up with the magical claims that he simple asked why they even bothered with, indeed, trying to "explain" it all using "naturalistic" processes or what have you....

If they are going to invoke magic anyway, why not just say that god used magic to shrink all the animals down and put them in temporary artificial hibernation and then store them in a small box the size of a bog of matches that Noah could then just keep in his pocket or something.

Why do they insist on making all those nonsense crazy claims to desperatly try to make it work in light of scientific realities... After all, if we are going to allow for magic to occur, then scientific realities are ignored anyway - since that IS what magic is.

So go all the way then, instead of arguing yourself into such impossible corners while making yourself look like a total scientifically illiterate fool ..................

Yes, I remember that video.
That was the geologists who went to people who believed in the Bible.
He was so intelligent amongst these blue collar workers.
I admired his will to speak to these ignorant non scientific people.

It is almost like Richard Dawkins holding classes with Atheists who aplaud their prophet when he tells them how stupid the Banana man is. Or when Dawkins teaches how silly a creator was for the structure of nerves passing a giraffe's heart, before going to its vocal cords.

Very clever these guys.
Then again, when Dawkins spoke to scientists who believed in the Bible, he sounded very silly indeed, such as when John Lennox had a debate with him, or when Richard had to call on God to help him to remember Darwin's book's name.

Wery clever indeed.

 

[SA Huguenot]

If I had to guess, all the jumping through "realistic hoops" when they could just appeal to "magic" is because the believer fully understands and must admit that we have no demonstrations of such drastic "magic" in our world as it stands now.

They're finding the window within which they can make outrageous claims without being called out when it turns out someone recorded the event, or that someone did some investigation and found them to be frauds, etc. getting smaller and smaller and smaller. So they have resorted to trying to fit God inside a box of realism so that they don't have to explain "magic" when pressed and must necessarily admit that they have absolutely no good contemporary examples to back them up.

On the contrary.
All I do is to look at what science discovers, and then read the exact same satupp in the Bible.
The only magic I find is that the Atheist dont like this magic.

This Magic that was written 3500 years ago, and discovered today.

Yes!
Indeed, the greatest Magic of all!
A Creator who ceated everything, and scientists now working for him without any renumeration.
I love it!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anyhow, why would you say that the biggest and tallest animals ever to live on the Earth would be able to have a mass 10 times larger than an elephant, and will be able to carry its mass?

Because of all the evidence that supports that in paleontology, anatomy, etc.

Have you never read the evidence "too big to walk" by Brian J Ford?

Alternatively, you could read up on dino's from actual paleontologists instead of a popular TV character who's making claims that were already refuted decades earlier.

Now if you want to see something verry funny, check out his videos where he mocks paleontologists who believes these animals did live on land.

I'm sure it's very funny to see a non-paleontologist pretend to know better then actual paleontologists.
However, I have better things to do with my free time.

You see, if I as a christian take the Biblical view that the Earth was created from a collection of water and solids, where the water and Ice was caught up in the inner layers of the earth, such as Kola proved, then I have a sound understanding on how the earth appeared in its infancy.

Mere beliefs don't lead to actual sound understanding of anything.

Now, how did marine fossils get to the top?

Another one of those creationist PRATTs.

There are (ancient) marine fossils found in rocks on top of mountains, because in ancient times, those mountains didn't exist and were the bottom of a sea floor.

It's quite well understood in geology and tectonic activity. Mountains are land masses that are pushed up due to tectonic activity below.

Easy, that rock was originally subdued in water.

Yes. But not because of some magical flood. And most certainly not in the last couple thousand years. Try a few dozen, or even hundreds of, million years instead.

Now, telling any person that these huge Dinosaurs were not aquatic, swamp living animals because we saw how the BBC depicted them, and believing that the Mountains on earth somehow were always as we see them now, that is realy ridicilous indeed.

If you actually think that the reason scientific consensus is that T-rex and alike were land animals "because the BBC depicts them like that", then I can only laugh out loud.

Science does not say any of that.

You made it quite clear by now that you don't actually have the slightest clue of what science says.
Your only source of information seems to be wacky theorists, creationist apologetics and other failed ideas.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I love to read scientific websites, and then look at what they discover and ask myself why this sounds so biblical.

Please. Don't lie.

Now why would you go to the "Kent Hovind argument"

Because your drivel sounds suspiciously a lot like the nonsense that guy spews.

What if I were to ask:
From what Atheist con-man did you get this nonsense? Richear Dawkins or alike?

Richard Dawkins is an actual, world reknown, and accomplished biologist with many many actual scientific publications that resulted in many many citations.

His views on religion and his books on that matter has no relevance to his work in biology.
So, if you were to ask such a question, it would be terribly misplaced and misinformed.

Do you think that it will prove to you that your point of view is stupid if I were to use such an argument?

No. But it would certainly show that you fail hard at scrutinizing sources.

I will not act in such a demeaning manner. First of all, I have too much respect for your right to question my point of view, and second of all, it is much more valuable to discuss such facts, than to demean you with nonsensical accusations.

You have to be aware of the facts, or at least acknowledge the facts, before you can discuss them.
So far, you have demonstrated that you're not able to do that, because your biblical beliefs prevent you to do that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yyaaah, You tell him.

Then again, I think TagliatelliMonster missed out on the fact that I said it did not rain, because there was a thick mist throughout the whole atmosphere and refraction of light did not occure before the flood.

And @ChristineM informed you about how nonsensical that is.
As expected and predicted, it's one ear in and out the other.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Considering this explanation, and the age Noah supposedly lived according to the Biblical timeline, it does not match.

How would you counter that?

I dont quite get your question.
Noah was 600 years old with the flood, and lived another 350 years.
He was born 2948 BC and died 1998 BC.
The Flood happened in about 1650 after Adam and Eve were created.
In a world where there was little cosmic radiation, and no Ultra violet rays damaging life, as well as a total abscense of C14 radiation, the Earth was a tropical rainforrest from one end to the other.Plantlife would have been immencely thick and lush, and man would have lived for hundreds of years.

lets look at it this way.
Bevcause the Earth had no C14, People did not age as we do today.
After the flood, as the atmosphere cleared up, and light was seen to refract, a rainbow appeared.
Now, with such descriptions, one can understand that :

• because the atmosphere cleared up, C14 production increased, which resulted in people ageing quicker.
• Taking the description of the ages of the Biblical ancients, one will see that human ages deteriorated after the flood, and on a graph, one can easily notice how human ages went down on a curve to about 70 Years of age.
• Due to the change of the atmosphere, any plantlife that fossilised, and animal life feeding on plants and other sources living from such food, will have a very low count of C14.
• This will render an animal, or plant fossil, with organic material tested for c14, as very old.

Why, because when they lived around 4500 years ago, there was no c14, and testing these residues will give you dates in excess of 35 000 years.

Therefore, there is no way to tell what age a bone, wood, or rock is, if we try to use c14 on any carbon sources.

Actually, scientists are growing C14 free plants as a foodsource knowing it will increase our lifespan.
Chris williams wrote a document where he showed that C14 poses huge health risks.
Then Plicht and J. P. M. Beijers came up with a strawman telling us that to get this much C14 in your body, will be as eating 400 Kg of soyabeans for a year.
Nice to read here.
Carbon 14 in Food
what licht and J. P. M. Beijers neglected to say, is that
1. we dont want to die in a year, but divide that C14 up in 70 years, and add cosmic radiation and ultra violet, and we have real evidence that it all contributes to bad health.
Furthermore, No One said that they wanted to prove that the danger limit of C14 must be reached, to die!
Nope, what Williams said was, C14 reduces your lifespan.
Therefore, it is clear.
Noah and the people living after him were for the first time exposed to C14, and other radiation.

Therefore, C14 is in itself evidence that the Biblical description of history, is scientifically correct,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On the contrary.
All I do is to look at what science discovers, and then read the exact same satupp in the Bible.

Your OP demonstrates otherwise as it reflects deep rooted scientific ignorance on pretty much all topics you touched on.