Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[A Vestigial Mote]

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!

This is all worthless crap, and I can easily display this to you based on your clarification of your stance. Easily.

So you say that The Bible is not the scientific instruction manual - fine. Then the state of your actual claims about it, at the very least, "not being in contention with science" are worthless. If the information isn't directly contained, and it simply "isn't in contention with science" then who the hell cares? Seriously. Of what USE is this idea?

And here's the demonstration of the complete uselessness of The Bible "not being in contention with science." Here... I will write something that is not in contention with science:

"When I flush the toilet. the water gets very swirly."​

BOOM! I have just written something that is not in contention with science! Therefore God exists! Right? Isn't that where you're going with all this? It's asinine. You should be ashamed of yourself. Utterly ashamed.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Then we have the continuance of civilizations when the Flood was supposed to have happened. There's no sign of it in the earliest civilization we know of, Çatal Hüyül in Anatolia, beginning about 7000 BCE (that is, some 5,500 years before the earliest evidence for Yahweh). There's no sign of any such interruption to the civilizations of Sumer, Egypt, Harappa, China.

Oh yes, I checked up on how the dating was done on for instance Catal Hüyül.
Carbon 14 on charcoal and bone fragments.
Now, C14 dating is actually in support to the Biblical description that the Atmosphere did not reach C14 C12 equilibrium up untill a thousand years after the flood.
That means that if something lived say 3500 years ago, C14 will show it to be 12 000 years of age.
Sory to bust the bubble, but I have yet to find an highly educated Phycisist to even discuss the propability that using the Biblical propability of a wet Atmosphere that changed into a clear one allowing cosmic radiation to enter, to take such a factor into consideration.
Catal Hüyül actually confirms the Biblical event, and is not pre Noahs Flood, but about 1 000 years younger.

Did you see how the ages of people in the Biblical description depreciated due to C14 radiation, and other radiation such as Ultraviolet, ect?
As soon as the atmosphere allowed entry to these rays, people aged faster.It is perhaps one of the best scientific models to show how the atmosphere reached C14 equilibrium.

It is easy too see how this graph can actually fit in with Genesis.

 

[Derek500]

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.

Maybe it's because those physicists are like me and they try to avoid really crazy people?

 

[SA Huguenot]

This is all worthless crap, and I can easily display this to you based on your clarification of your stance. Easily.

So you say that The Bible is not the scientific instruction manual - fine. Then the state of your actual claims about it, at the very least, "not being in contention with science" are worthless. If the information isn't directly contained, and it simply "isn't in contention with science" then who the hell cares? Seriously. Of what USE is this idea?

And here's the demonstration of the completely uselessness of The Bible "not being in contention with science." Here... I will write something that is not in contention with science:

"When I flush the toilet. the water gets very swirly."​

BOOM! I have just written something that is not in contention with science! Therefore God exists! Right? Isn't that where you're going with all this? It's asinine. You should be ashamed of yourself. Utterly ashamed.

Why the agro pal?
All I did was to show the Atheists that says the Bible is in contradictio with science, are not taking all the factors into consideration.
Actually, what I did was to give an alternative to the blind faith of Evolutionists that hates anything Biblical.
You for one.
Why the hatred?
Is it not true that you thought the Bible was not to be reconciled with science?
That you were under the impression that the Nebular theory you learned in science is evidence that the Bible got the origins of the universe wrong?
Is it not true that you for one, never knew that the Nebular theory was plagerised from Genesis and that the Atheist never knew they were actually fighting Genesis with Genesis?
Is it not true that you never knew that the origins of the Earth was one of water?
That science is now discovering this fact?
Did you not know that C14 testing confirms the dating of Genesis?

All these nice things we Christians are not bothered about, but that makes atheists furious, just like you got very insulting and are now using a vulgar way to talk to someone who dont worry about insults.
As the Bible say, insults should be ignored by the intellectual.
Sorry you feel the way you do, but take heed that just as the atheist liked to build strawmen thinking they destroyed the bible when they burned their idol, in the same manner can I build a bonfire with scientific observations, to destroy their bias.

And you know what, facts burns warmer.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Maybe it's because those physicists are like me and they try to avoid really crazy people?

OK, So, why dont you tell me then...
If the Atmosphere were a wet entity before the flood, and cleared up a year later, how much C14 will be in it?

 

[blü 2]

Oh yes, I checked up on how the dating was done on for instance Catal Hüyül.
Carbon 14 on charcoal and bone fragments.
Now, C14 dating is actually in support to the Biblical description that the Atmosphere did not reach C14 C12 equilibrium up untill a thousand years after the flood.
That means that if something lived say 3500 years ago, C14 will show it to be 12 000 years of age.
Sory to bust the bubble, but I have yet to find an highly educated Phycisist to even discuss the propability that using the Biblical propability of a wet Atmosphere that changed into a clear one allowing cosmic radiation to enter, to take such a factor into consideration.
Catal Hüyül actually confirms the Biblical event, and is not pre Noahs Flood, but about 1 000 years younger.

Did you see how the ages of people in the Biblical description depreciated due to C14 radiation, and other radiation such as Ultraviolet, ect?
As soon as the atmosphere allowed entry to these rays, people aged faster.It is perhaps one of the best scientific models to show how the atmosphere reached C14 equilibrium.



View attachment 50897

It is easy too see how this graph can actually fit in with Genesis.

So where are the genetic bottlenecks in all land animals all of the same date? Where is that single geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor? Where is that extra billion cubic miles of water?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry pal, just as you are allowed to have your opinions, I am allowed to also have mine.

The problem is that you tend to confuse opinions with facts and ignorance with knowledge.

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!

So you found an atheist who turned theist.
How about all the theists who learned science and then turned atheist?
Are they evidence that "the religion of atheism", as you hilariously call it, is "correct"?

No? How about that.


You should learn what is and isn't evidence. It would save you quite some embarassment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Which is equally ridiculous, if not more.

 

[SA Huguenot]

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?

I think yo9u got me totally wrong.
for one, I believe the C14 testing methods, and will not question the ages in their results.
What I do say is that, if we just for one second, assume an atmosphere that was filled with high levels of fog, for 1500 years, and then have this atmosphere clear up...
Will there be C14?

The aswer is no!

Now, as I say, I dont have a problem if you dont want to accept the Biblical description, thats up to you...
But then you must allow me to accept the Biblical narratives, and you MUST allow me to utilise C14 dating to be seen in the light of what I read from the Bible.

I have heard so many times how Atheists say they have the ultimate evidence that the Bible is wrong, because C14 shows that there was people living 10 000 and 15 000 years ago, and that some Mamoths date to 20 000 years etc.

Well, such a claim is invalid if the C14 levels did not exist 4500 years ago!
If the C14 levels was non existant after the flood, any sample will test incredible ages.

Therefore, I do not know why you would give me any links to people who debunled some creationist findings.
It has nothing to do with what I say.
as for Helium in Zircon?
True I did mention the helium in Zircon, but my main use for the zircon factors is to give you evidence that science now knows the Earth was wet in its formation.
We can also look at Silver isotopes.

Sorry, but the links you supplied does not invalidate my facts.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why the agro pal?
All I did was to show the Atheists that says the Bible is in contradictio with science, are not taking all the factors into consideration.
Actually, what I did was to give an alternative to the blind faith of Evolutionists that hates anything Biblical.
You for one.
Why the hatred?
Is it not true that you thought the Bible was not to be reconciled with science?
That you were under the impression that the Nebular theory you learned in science is evidence that the Bible got the origins of the universe wrong?
Is it not true that you for one, never knew that the Nebular theory was plagerised from Genesis and that the Atheist never knew they were actually fighting Genesis with Genesis?
Is it not true that you never knew that the origins of the Earth was one of water?
That science is now discovering this fact?
Did you not know that C14 testing confirms the dating of Genesis?

All these nice things we Christians are not bothered about, but that makes atheists furious, just like you got very insulting and are now using a vulgar way to talk to someone who dont worry about insults.
As the Bible say, insults should be ignored by the intellectual.
Sorry you feel the way you do, but take heed that just as the atheist liked to build strawmen thinking they destroyed the bible when they burned their idol, in the same manner can I build a bonfire with scientific observations, to destroy their bias.

And you know what, facts burns warmer.

Parts of The Bible are most definitely in contradiction to scientific findings. I didn't really think this point was what you were going after because it is just so indefensible. So completely indefensible that it is laughable. I thought you were trying to state that The Bible contains some sound information from a scientific perspective - not that the entire thing is without contradiction to scientific findings.

Holy crap - here's a super-duper easy one - if you understand the science (if you don't now, then go read up and come back to me once you have), then this one blows your stance completely out of the water.

The Bible says: "God made the first man (Adam) out of clay." - that is, literally, that the first human was made from clay. Now, I get that we are all put together from the same stuff that exists on Earth - not all of it can be found in "clay", specifically, of course - but I am sure that is where your feeble attempts to defend The Bible's idiotic account would go. I get that entirely. But what I would like you to take into consideration is the striking, and rationally undeniable evidence for common descent (that is, humans as a product of the evolution of other ape species) that comes in the form of the study of endogenous retroviruses (this is the key thing you need to read up on if you currently have no knowledge or exposure - which is why I bolded, italicized, and underlined it for you, for your convenience) as they appear in mass-commonality within the DNA of both other ape species and humans. Where does the fact that human and ape lineage converge somewhere down the line play into the idea that "God created the first human from clay?" How do you reconcile this? Wouldn't it be somewhat more accurate to say that He created the first "ape" from this earthen substance? Hell... I mean it makes more sense not to use the specific word "clay" in the first place, of course, since it is not encompassing of enough of the actual materials used to grow and become a human body... but we're talking about The Bible, of course - which means we have to give it some leeway, as it was written by a bunch of ancient people who were ignorant of many of the facts surrounding their own existence and state of being. It would also then make more sense to say that He created the first [insert original ancestor of apes and humans here] out of "clay," but, of course, we couldn't expect that knowledge to be part of thousands of years old peoples either.

And I will tell you exactly why the animosity from my end. Because your type of mindset sickens me. That's why. It is the bane of humanity, in my opinion, and I personally can't do enough to combat it. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[SA Huguenot]

o you found an atheist who turned theist.
How about all the theists who learned science and then turned atheist?
Are they evidence that "the religion of atheism", as you hilariously call it, is "correct"?

Give themn time.
As science discovers more and more Biblical facts, they will also change their opinion.

Anthony Flew saw all the masses of discoveries science found, and he shook his 100 years old scientific opinions off which he carried his whole life, and realised what he bellieved were outdated scientific bias believed by Bible haters.
Thats all.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Parts of The Bible are most definitely in contradiction to scientific findings. I didn't really think this point was what you were going after because it is just so indefensible. So completely indefensible that it is laughable. I thought you were trying to state that The Bible contains some sound information from a scientific perspective - not that the entire thing is without contradiction to scientific findings.

Holy crap - here's a super-duper easy one - if you understand the science (if you don't now, then go read up and come back to me once you have), then this one blows your stance completely out of the water.

The Bible says: "God made the first man (Adam) out of clay." - that is, literally, that the first human was made from clay. Now, I get that we are all put together from the same stuff that exists on Earth - not all of it can be found in "clay", specifically, of course - but I am sure that is where your feeble attempts to defend The Bible's idiotic account would go. I get that entirely. But what I would like you to take into consideration is the striking, and rationally undeniable evidence for common descent (that is, humans as a product of the evolution of other ape species) that comes in the form of the study of endogenous retroviruses (this is the key thing you need to read up on if you currently have no knowledge or exposure - which is why I bolded, italicized, and underlined it for you, for your convenience) as they appear in mass-commonality within the DNA of both other ape species and humans. Where does the fact that human and ape lineage converge somewhere down the line play into the idea that "God created the first human from clay?" How do you reconcile this? Wouldn't it be somewhat more accurate to say that He created the first "ape" from this earthen substance? Hell... I mean it makes more sense not to use the specific word "clay" in the first place, of course, since it is not encompassing of enough of the actual materials used to grow and become a human body... but we're talking about The Bible, of course - which means we have to give it some leeway, as it was written by a bunch of ancient people who were ignorant of many of the facts surrounding their own existence and state of being. It would also then make more sense to say that He created the first [insert original ancestor of apes and humans here] out of "clay," but, of course, we couldn't expect that knowledge to be part of thousands of years old peoples either.

And I will tell you exactly why the animosity from my end. Because your type of mindset sickens me. That's why. It is the bane of humanity, in my opinion, and I personally can't do enough to combat it. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

And here we go.
I still dont know why...
when I am discussing one point, the Bible hater will come in with some totally irrelevant topic, and will ask questions about it.
Jordan Peterson says it is a sign of someone in DENIAL, and that person NEEDS to demolish everything that might be perceived as evidence contrary to what the status quo holds.
Do you want to talk about the creation of Adam now?
Shall we open another thread?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Give themn time.
As science discovers more and more Biblical facts, they will also change their opinion.

Maybe you should give the theists time. Maybe as they will discover how science doesn't say what apologists and con-artists claim, they will be the ones to change opinions?

Your double standard and confirmation bias is showing again.

Anthony Flew saw all the masses of discoveries science found, and he shook his 100 years old scientific opinions off which he carried his whole life, and realised what he bellieved were outdated scientific bias believed by Bible haters.
Thats all.

You really need to start comprehending that what people believe, and the mere fact that they believe it, is not evidence of them being correct in those beliefs.

Something is not true just because X believes it. Or because X amount of people believe it.

It's one fallacy after the other with you.

Learn what is and isn't evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think yo9u got me totally wrong.
for one, I believe the C14 testing methods, and will not question the ages in their results.
What I do say is that, if we just for one second, assume an atmosphere that was filled with high levels of fog, for 1500 years, and then have this atmosphere clear up...
Will there be C14?

The aswer is no!

Now, as I say, I dont have a problem if you dont want to accept the Biblical description, thats up to you...
But then you must allow me to accept the Biblical narratives, and you MUST allow me to utilise C14 dating to be seen in the light of what I read from the Bible.

I have heard so many times how Atheists say they have the ultimate evidence that the Bible is wrong, because C14 shows that there was people living 10 000 and 15 000 years ago, and that some Mamoths date to 20 000 years etc.

Well, such a claim is invalid if the C14 levels did not exist 4500 years ago!
If the C14 levels was non existant after the flood, any sample will test incredible ages.

Therefore, I do not know why you would give me any links to people who debunled some creationist findings.
It has nothing to do with what I say.
as for Helium in Zircon?
True I did mention the helium in Zircon, but my main use for the zircon factors is to give you evidence that science now knows the Earth was wet in its formation.
We can also look at Silver isotopes.

Sorry, but the links you supplied does not invalidate my facts.

What do you mean high levels of fog? Does there have to be enough water vapor in the atmosphere for there to be a fog or do lower levels of water vapor count?

What is your claim here about the dependence of atmospheric C14 and fog?

What do you mean no C14 in the atmosphere if the fog clears.

What evidence are you using to claim there was no C14 4500 years ago?

I am having trouble understanding what you think is evidence that supports your claims and what, if any of what you have posted, is a valid fact.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And here we go.
I still dont know why...
when I am discussing one point, the Bible hater will come in with some totally irrelevant topic, and will ask questions about it.
Jordan Peterson says it is a sign of someone in DENIAL, and that person NEEDS to demolish everything that might be perceived as evidence contrary to what the status quo holds.
Do you want to talk about the creation of Adam now?
Shall we open another thread?

Hahahaha... sure sure. Act as if my pointing out where The Bible is in contention with science is "off topic" when our discussion led us DIRECTLY to the idea that YOU stated, which is that The Bible is not in conflict with science in any way. And I'm the one "in denial." I'll even accept that "the flood happened." There. You happy now? Still doesn't mean that The Bible is not in contention with scientific findings does it? If you were honest, you'd answer "no." Just a heads up.

 

[McBell]

I don't understand why people are being so hostile here.

I never claimed to know everything.

Noah and the Ark just aren't very important to me personally.

I've thought about it - sure - but any answer doesn't really change much for me.

You claim to know something, but refuse to reveal what it is you claim to know.

 

[Pete in Panama]

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

How would you counter that?

Y'all are running around in circles & imho Issac Asimov (no starry eyed religious fanatic he) wrote up a marvelous description of the validity of Noah's flood. I'd be happy to post it here if u want.

 

[firedragon]

Y'all are running around in circles & imho Issac Asimov (no starry eyed religious fanatic he) wrote up a marvelous description of the validity of Noah's flood. I'd be happy to post it here if u want.

Its not necessary. Because maybe your comment is not relevant to me.

 

[Derek500]

Y'all are running around in circles & imho Issac Asimov (no starry eyed religious fanatic he) wrote up a marvelous description of the validity of Noah's flood. I'd be happy to post it here if u want.

A Biochemist? I'm not really sure why he would be able to write anything about the rocks deposited after floods. What's his qualifications in geology?

 

[tas8831]

Have you heard the good news? Sin is "100% genetically transmitted so there is no way to dodge it".

This is incredible. I don't know how I missed all the papers on this.

Hold on now, the crack experts at AiG say it is "spiritually" inherited!