Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[rational experiences]

Evidence man in science caused nuclear reaction condition in nature.

Humans are human.

Sex is a condition of a human body.

In cloud atomic explosion penis erection images are seen. Penis bio form only. Proving man designer changed life in science as it's designer by that image.

History volcano O opening inside cold stone was hot dense inside mass released gases as smoking cooling rolling change.

Cloud form goes back to smoking heated rolling gases as clouds.

Theism sun inside volcano likened to sun mass only as radiation amount to convert stone. Is not cloud form or presence cloud history.

God one form not the heavens was the taught science.

 

[rational experiences]

I'm hardly making excuses. I'm offering plausible possibilities.

I never claimed that ancient Israel did not have access to the myths and legends of ancient Mesopotamia - including the tales of Gilgamesh.

All I claimed was that them knowing it wouldn't prove that they did not already know a version of that same story. With their own names and places.

There is no reason that both the ancient Mesopotamians and the ancient Israelites did not know and were telling the same stories - separated by distance, culture and millennia.

The ancient Babylonians had developed a written language long before Israel did.

The written testimony of a person who witnessed an event does not determine that the testimonies of witnesses of the same event written afterward are copying the first.

Simply put - I cannot confirm or deny anything - but nothing you have shared proves that the story of Noah in Genesis did not happen.

You're just going to need to provide more.

In science a one of thesis is said once. No reaction change involved.

Ignored as self advice human pretending about God form. Form not even changed yet.

Then machines reacts it once. Begins ends mass changed. Machine first not react reaction until controlled. Human choice depends on machine control only.

However mass is abstracted to keep that one original thesis active is not a continual story.

If you keep rebuilding the want for the same reaction it is built by machine only. Natural history is not the advice. Advice just says happened attacked again. Verified it occurred before life attacked. History causes said so.

Theme science taught science caused life attack.

 

[Subduction Zone]

C'mon - why are you being so flaccid with your claims?

You made claims about Noah - then claimed that "much" of what you said could be confirmed - so that's why I asked how you confirmed them.

I can't be direct with my questions since your claim was so vague.

LOL! You won't be specific with your claims. I have done this before and people pretend that their version of the flood myth was not refuted because they were too cowardly to state it.

Give me specifics and I will tell you why you are wrong.

My attempt to refresh your memory was neither excessive or distorted.

Are you coming up with more abstract reasons to not back up what you claim? Again?

More projection. Almost everything that you post has been distorted. Have you forgotten your failures on the thread where we first tangled so soon?

Of course the Flood story did not "originate" with the Hebrews. Noah was not a Hebrew. He lived long before the Hebrews.

I understand how it could be considered "Hebrew mythology" - but that terminology can cause people to make all kinds of snap judgments - like you do.

LOL. You do make me laugh.

That date isn't agreed upon by the "experts" though - so don't jump the gun.

Older versions of the the story of Noah or the Flood event?

Considering that the ancient Babylonians had developed a written language long before the ancient Hebrews did - it's not a surprise that we would find older written records of the Flood event from Babylonian sources.

I mean - this is kinda common sense.

That des not mean that ancient Hebrews were not passing on the story of Noah and the Flood around the same time the Babylonians were writing their version.

I cannot confirm or deny this. No one can. No one knows this.

I've never claimed to subscribe to a global Flood event.

What claims would those be?

Could you quote me making them?

I don't believe lack of evidence proves anything - other than there is lack of evidence.

When you are ready to be serious then post some claims Your present ones have been refuted.

 

[rational experiences]

The flood was caused by how much mass of radiation was put into the heavens.

Nuclear power plant causes whatever earth core radiation is released. Controls the mass cause by reaction.

Science had to put into atmosphere extra radiation that power plant reaction was not allowing.

Father said lucky the nuclear model owned control of radiation released.

Was known or else extra radiation would not have been put into atmosphere by theist choice. Self human aware advice. Known advice by status unknown just possessed.

To say knew what you were doing but not by human choice. Coercive reasoning told you. Self motivation owned a different reasoning.

Subliminal demonstrates it possessed evil actions not relative to natural science thesis awareness

Why the heard bible status is not true to natural conditions either.

If you used rational advice not motivated by want greed and control only then would you understand lying obsessions in science.

 

[Derek500]

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.

Err, no. Actual South African Geologist here. The approximately 182 million year old basalts now forming the Drakensberg Mountains were formed when basaltic and andesitic lavas reached the then surface. This happened as a result of rifting tectonics; the breakup of the Gondwana. Needless to say; we don't find fossils in basalts.

To the rest of you, be assured that only a very small percentage of South Africans are like SA Hugenot.

 

[Derek500]

C14 is not a method used for very long periods, but nevertheless your statement was probably the biggest mistake I have ever read in my life said so confidently.

There was "NO C14"? Even as children we learned about Carbon Dating. And the only fact about any kind of radiometric dating is it is a division. And you go and say 3000 years ago there was no C14. My God.

Ciao.

Yes, I must admit I laughed mao about this one. Obviously someone doesn't know how C14 is formed in the atmosphere...yet he tries to tell us that all those specialists on the subject are all wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I must admit I laughed mao about this one. Obviously someone doesn't know how C14 is formed in the atmosphere...yet he tries to tell us that all those specialists on the subject are all wrong.

I couldn't believe my eyes really.

 

[gnostic]

Err, no. Actual South African Geologist here. The approximately 182 million year old basalts now forming the Drakensberg Mountains were formed when basaltic and andesitic lavas reached the then surface. This happened as a result of rifting tectonics; the breakup of the Gondwana. Needless to say; we don't find fossils in basalts.

To the rest of you, be assured that only a very small percentage of South Africans are like SA Hugenot.

I did only a semester of geology for my civil engineering course, so the paleontology is not covered, being irrelevant to the course.

From what I understand, fossilisation occur (when they do occur) being covered/buried by sedimentary rocks. Is that true?

 

[Derek500]

I'm not a palaeontologist either and didn't even do any course in palaeontology.

Fossilisation can occur in different circumstances. The most obvious one is when a plant or animal dies, and then is relatively quickly covered by sediments (whether caused by water, wind or chemically), before they can be destroyed by carnivores, herbivores, decomposition, etc. It also depends on whether the environment is reducing or oxidising; etc. For example, animals sinking to the bottom in deep sea don't have to be relatively quickly covered to eventually fossilise.

 

[Derek500]

Gnostic, I just know that I won't expect to find an elephant fossil in the basalt after an elephant tries suicide by jumping into the lake of lava in a caldera .

 

[SA Huguenot]

If, by chance, you are talking about things discovered to be scientifically predictable in modern times that you think you have found corollary, descriptive verses for in The Bible... then that's just plain dumb. Do you know why? Because if it was written in The Bible for 3500 years, then why was no one utilizing the information prior to modernity? Why did it take scientists figuring it out before anyone accepted it as useful information? If your Bible contains all the information we'll ever need, then why aren't people figuring these things out just based on their reading of The Bible? It's asinine to believe as you do, if this is truly what you believe. Just ridiculous.

Yip. this is what they said about Kant.
And now what he took from Genesis is science.

 

[SA Huguenot]

People aren't coming to these useful, reality-modeling pieces of information about our world through reading of The Bible. They aren't. Which means that even if The Bible does contain this information as you seem to like to pretend that it does, it is either too vague (a super easy case to make in any case, I am sure) or it is all written in riddles. Of what use is the information then? If it still takes someone else using some other method to come to the information, then of what use was its obtuse inclusion in The Bible? I am quite sure you can't answer this question to anyone's satisfaction. Quite sure.

Yes, thats why these riddles to the atheist, is easily understandable to Christians.
Sorry pal, just as you are allowed to have your opinions, I am allowed to also have mine.
As a matter of fact,
Never did I at once claim the Bible to be a scientific handbook!

All I said was that the Bible gives a description on the origins of our earth, and too add, it ventures where no other religious book ever went in its description, and as science progresses, not a single thing in the Bible is in contradiction with the science.

Thats all.
If you understood that I claim you will find E=MC2 in the Bible, you are making a wrong assumption.

My stance is that...
Everytime an Atheist tries to sell the Bible off as a collection of myths and fairy tales due to their ignorant bias, I like to taunt them with links to scientific websites that shows them that what they use as evidence, are actually wrong, and that some scientific discoveries can be used to support the scriptural claims.
I just love it to get the Bible critisizers realising that it is realy not difficuilt to shake their own religion of Atheism.
Let me give you an example. jUST FOR YOU.

I read the book by Anthony Flew, There is a God!
Wow, one of the foremost Atheists the world has ever seen, the prophet of Dawkins and Harris, eventually took the scientific discoveries over the last 20 years, and ...
THIS STAUNCE ATHEIST NOW REVOKED ALL HIS PREVIOUS CLAIMS AND SAY:
I WAS WRONG, THERE IS A GOD!

 

[SA Huguenot]

You are correct, there are limits to what can be dated.

But with human history of LESS THAN 10,000 YEARS, which would include the Neolithic period, Bronze Age and Iron Age, they are not dating rocks, and THEY WOULDN’T BE WORKING ON FOSSILS.

Human remains and animals remains that are less than 10,000 years wouldn’t have time to begin fossilisation.

And fossilisation don’t always occur, because bones have to begin permineralization of the bones (which is the first process before fossilisation occur) occur before starting actual fossilisation process, and permineralization may not occur at all.

You see!
This is the difference between someone like me that believe in the Bible due to long investigations on science, archaeology and philosophy in relation to science, and someone who was taught to stay within the realms of mainstream Atheism and to not venture out of the Evolutionary box so to say.
I never had a problem in believing that the fossils are not older than say 6 000 years.
Remember, in my evaluation, I discovereed that the Bible never says the Universe and the Earth is 6 000 years old. For that there was too many scientific evidences to the contrary.
But what I did find was that the Bible gives a date that life was not older than 6 000 years.

And I simply love your observation that it would take thousands of years to get living matter to petrify.

Well, I did find this nice onging scientific experiment contradicting the claim that petrification will take that long.
Not only did I appreciate this discovery, but I saw many fossils of fish, for instance, perfectly preserved, still with prey in its mouth.
Even before I read this article in 2015, I had no problem to believe that a fissil can cristalise in a few days.
Anyhow, enjoy the link. (promise it is not Ken Ham or Ken Hovint as I was accused of using for my research)
Surprise! Fossils in a flash
NB, Can you perhaps explain how it is possible to still find DNA and tissue in fossils age over 65 million years?

 

[SA Huguenot]

And C14 may remain in non-fossil skeletal remains for between 50,000 and 65,000 years.

True,
But this was where I had an eye opening revelation when I studied C14 dating.
It is simply a comparison on C14 and C12 where the more C14, the younger the specimen, and the less c 14, points to an older specimen.
Lets look at the facts that with C14 having a half life of +- 5700 years, will render it virtually impossible to date a sample older than 40 000 years. True, some realy great acurate machines developed during the past 15 years, and C14 can be detected in 50K.
But that is it! another halflife, and any C14 will be non detectable for samples older than 60 K.
simply because there will be no C14 left.

Ok, but what I asked to a few phycisists at various Universities in SA, made them cringe, and to dissappear, never to answer this single question.
1. We all know that C14 is created in the outer limits of the atmosphere when N14 is hit by cosmic radiation, and plantlife absorbs this carbon to photosynthesis.
2. Animal Life then absorbs the C14 as they eat the plant fodder.
3. When the animal dies, it stops to absorb any more C14, and the C14 decays over a Halflife of 5700 years.
4. And science tells us that the atmosphere reached equilibreum millions of years ago, where the ammount of C14 is roughly the same as it was in the 1950's.
Now my question:

• If we postulate and use the Biblical description on the appearence of the Atmosphere before the flood of Noah, that it was a foggy collection of water mist throughout its depth, Would the Atmosphere have had C14 to the volumes we measured in the 1950's?
• Nope, it would not have had any measurable C14!
• If we then use the Biblical description that the refraction of light (the rainbow) was possible after the flood due to a clear atmosphere, It would have taken about 1000 years to reach equilibrium.
• Such a postulation, that C14 only started to be produced 4500 years ago, and reached equilibrium at 3500 years ago, will show the date of an animal or plant residue (such as fossils and charcoal) as VERY OLD WHILST IT ACTUALLY LIVED 4 000 TO 3000 YEARS AGO! due to very low C14 levels to begin with.
• Therefore, all C14 does is to confirm the Genesis creation story from my point of view.

Now, why would any scientist run away from this theory, and not acknowledge that C14 does not prove the Bible wrong?

 

[SA Huguenot]

There are many different methods that can be used to date objects, including rock, such as lead isotopes, the argon-potassium isotopes, uranium isotopes that date rocks and rock minerals.

Isotope U-238 can date rocks billions of years old, and have been dated many of the oldest rocks on Earth, as can U-235.

So radiometric dating isn’t confined to only C-14.

And as I have said.
I never had a problem with the matter of the Earth being very old. I dont believe the Earth to be only 6 000 years of asge. I bel;ieve Life to be only 6 000 years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yip. this is what they said about Kant.
And now what he took from Genesis is science.

You never justified that claim with a reliable source.

And even if he did the argument can be refuted with a So what? Being inspired by a myth is not evidence for that myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And as I have said.
I never had a problem with the matter of the Earth being very old. I dont believe the Earth to be only 6 000 years of asge. I bel;ieve Life to be only 6 000 years old.

And you are demonstrably wrong. Besides radiometric metric dating, which tells us that life is billions of years old we have other methods of dating events. Minimal dates can be accomplished just by counting annual deposition layers. The Green River Formation alone is a single stratum that has about six million annual layers. And it has fossils in those layers. Your attempt to justify the Genesis myths using science fails abysmally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True,
But this was where I had an eye opening revelation when I studied C14 dating.
It is simply a comparison on C14 and C12 where the more C14, the younger the specimen, and the less c 14, points to an older specimen.
Lets look at the facts that with C14 having a half life of +- 5700 years, will render it virtually impossible to date a sample older than 40 000 years. True, some realy great acurate machines developed during the past 15 years, and C14 can be detected in 50K.
But that is it! another halflife, and any C14 will be non detectable for samples older than 60 K.
simply because there will be no C14 left.

Ok, but what I asked to a few phycisists at various Universities in SA, made them cringe, and to dissappear, never to answer this single question.
1. We all know that C14 is created in the outer limits of the atmosphere when N14 is hit by cosmic radiation, and plantlife absorbs this carbon to photosynthesis.
2. Animal Life then absorbs the C14 as they eat the plant fodder.
3. When the animal dies, it stops to absorb any more C14, and the C14 decays over a Halflife of 5700 years.
4. And science tells us that the atmosphere reached equilibreum millions of years ago, where the ammount of C14 is roughly the same as it was in the 1950's.
Now my question:

• If we postulate and use the Biblical description on the appearence of the Atmosphere before the flood of Noah, that it was a foggy collection of water mist throughout its depth, Would the Atmosphere have had C14 to the volumes we measured in the 1950's?
• Nope, it would not have had any measurable C14!
• If we then use the Biblical description that the refraction of light (the rainbow) was possible after the flood due to a clear atmosphere, It would have taken about 1000 years to reach equilibrium.
• Such a postulation, that C14 only started to be produced 4500 years ago, and reached equilibrium at 3500 years ago, will show the date of an animal or plant residue (such as fossils and charcoal) as VERY OLD WHILST IT ACTUALLY LIVED 4 000 TO 3000 YEARS AGO! due to very low C14 levels to begin with.
• Therefore, all C14 does is to confirm the Genesis creation story from my point of view.

Now, why would any scientist run away from this theory, and not acknowledge that C14 does not prove the Bible wrong?

Yes, university professors tend to cringe and hide when biblical crazies come their way. They know that such people cannot be helped.

 

[HonestJoe]

If we postulate and use the Biblical description on the appearence of the Atmosphere before the flood of Noah, that it was a foggy collection of water mist throughout its depth,

That isn't what the Bible says though, it's only your speculative interpretation of it. You also don't seem to have a fixed date for that period beyond "before Noah".

If we then use the Biblical description that the refraction of light (the rainbow) was possible after the flood due to a clear atmosphere, It would have taken about 1000 years to reach equilibrium.

That's even more speculative. I see absolutely zero justification to assume that is why that would be the first ever rainbow (not that there is any justification to assume it could have been of course).

Such a postulation, that C14 only started to be produced 4500 years ago, and reached equilibrium at 3500 years ago, will show the date of an animal or plant residue (such as fossils and charcoal) as VERY OLD WHILST IT ACTUALLY LIVED 4 000 TO 3000 YEARS AGO! due to very low C14 levels to begin with.

Where are you getting these dates from?

Therefore, all C14 does is to confirm the Genesis creation story from my point of view.

Even if all your assumptions and speculation were accurate, all it would prove is a rough timeline. It wouldn't be evidence for any of the specific narrative or the ark story.

Now, why would any scientist run away from this theory, and not acknowledge that C14 does not prove the Bible wrong?

Which scientists have said that "C14 proves the Bible wrong" exactly? Carbon dating is evidence of dating (hence the name ). It is used, along with all sorts of other methods and evidence, to establish when different things happened. If you make an assertion that something happened that is wildly out of line with the timelines established via all the evidence, you're going to be challenged on it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yip. this is what they said about Kant.
And now what he took from Genesis is science.

You didn't answer my question. Typical, honestly. The true answer to a question frightens you so much that you just dodge and weave to avoid having to come to terms with the ridiculous state of your own unfounded beliefs.

Here's the question (pay close attention now): Why aren't people figuring these scientific things out just based on their reading of The Bible?