• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Noah's flood story, did it happen?

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Please note that I was referring to what Asimov said & you're quoting like, wikipedia quoting Thiotimoline quoting Asimov. What Asimov himself directly said in his Noah's Ark thingee (from Asimov's Bible book) is----and then he proceeded to clarify saying--You've got to remember that Asimov was no theist, but at the same time he was realistic enough to have a profound respect for the Bible which he described as follows--
So the "validity" is that the Noah flood is a mere "fish story", an embellishment of a possible local flood. Cool.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
So, everyone is wrong if they dont agree with you on Noah's flood, the Biblical creation in relation to science, the existence of God etc.
Yes.
The Nobel Laureates over 100 years.
65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim
Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics).
Christians made up just under two–thirds of those receiving the physics and medicine awards
(64% and 65% respectively), whilst the figure was even higher for chemistry, as they accounted for nearly three–quarters of the winners (74%).

Here we have it,
The most educated people on this earth that made everyone's life better.

So - which of those Christians were awarded Nobel Prizes for discovering evidence that the bible tales regarding creation and the flood and such were real events?

I will gladly wait while you retrieve that actually relevant information.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So, everyone is wrong if they dont agree with you on Noah's flood, the Biblical creation in relation to science, the existence of God etc.

That's not even close to what I actually said.

Oph! but the world is realy bad in having Christians and people using science to attest that God exists.

The Nobel Laureates over 100 years.
65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim
Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics).
Christians made up just under two–thirds of those receiving the physics and medicine awards (64% and 65% respectively), whilst the figure was even higher for chemistry, as they accounted for nearly three–quarters of the winners (74%).

Here we have it,
The most educated people on this earth that made everyone's life better.

And none of them received their nobel for their religious beliefs, as their religious beliefs are 100% irrelevant to the work they actually received the nobel for.

Once again, I can only repeat myself:

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


You should really stop doubling down on your fallacies, especially after they have been pointed out to you.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
What I learnt being a healthy human psyche to irradiated.
You were irradiated? As in, seriously over-irradiated by some source? What was the source, if you don't mind me asking?

You have to quote science human thesis to advise where a mind of theist human placed human beginnings.
I have a real problem following what you are saying in a lot of posts, I'm not going to lie. It sounds here like you are saying that one must refer to scientific findings in order to give someone information about where theists place our human origins. Seems strange, and I would entirely disagree. Or perhaps you're saying that science may hold the key to understanding why theists' minds place our origins in the hands of buffoons like "God?" Not sure there is anyone actually working on this issue from a scientific perspective, but perhaps you know better than I.

As water with microbiomes that had sealed shut fission reaction of a sun blasting converting earth mass.
I can pick some sense out of this one, but it is only descriptive of what we (modernly) understand to be the process of the ability of the living matter of the earth (which seems to have most likely started in water) to use the energy of sunlight to gather particularly beneficial or nutritious elements and minerals into large quantities at the surface of the Earth, thereby furthering the survivability of all variety of creature on the planet. Nothing revolutionary here from a modern perspective, and I am not exactly sure why you simply mention it without context here.

Humans did not begin in stone as microbiome. You however said we did as life by a science theist is his claim began inside stone.
I said nothing of the sort, at all. I made an appeal to evidence for common descent of man from other ape species. How does that IN ANY WAY equate to my making any sort of claims about the origins of life on Earth? Human forms of life, perhaps - but your "in stone" garbage doesn't hold up when compared to anything I have said. Humans evolving from other apes is only the "origin story" of humans insofar as it is a description of how life that already existed and came about in some way (I readily admit that I do not know exactly how this was achieved - though I have my suspicions) eventually became the human form.

Life began in water above ground.
Irrelevant to anything I have said, honestly.

God owned water with life. Why not lit water has life in its great depths.
It seems as though you are sort of making a claim that "lit water" (assumedly, water with starlight pouring into it) cannot produce life intrinsically, and that it takes "God" to make the leap from a combination of water and light to "life." Is that what you are saying? If so, you have no evidence for this. You don't. As such, I'd probably stop stating it so matter-of-factly, if I were you.

Teaching heavens as God status owned it first. Not God the stone mass.
There is no sense to be found in this sentence, as far as I can tell. What do you mean when you use the word "own" here? I can't make heads or tails of this gibberish.

Earth was blasted by the sun that set alight gases again that burnt microbes in water to produce carbon body.
This doesn't sound accurate, and seems to simply assume the pre-existence of "microbes." In the end are you saying that "God" created the microbes? I am entirely confused.

Water as the origin flood was not science. Origin natural water sealed off the stone by natural water not salted. By pressure conditions. Mass of.
More gibberish to me, unfortunately. In particular, "Mass of." is not even a complete sentence. Perhaps try using more words?

Evaporation placed water mass back into heavens. UFO still active. Pressure changed. Underground volcanic eruptions. Water salted.
And now an appeal to "UFOs." And you expect to be taken seriously because... ?

Known recorded ancient psychic higher aware intelligent spiritual humans far more intelligent than any of you today but still destructive history of human thinking. About good and bad but hurting good by applying bad. Choice of men.
"Intelligent spiritual humans" you say? Those certainly aren't 3 words you would ever catch me purposefully stringing together thusly.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
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?
If we, as I proposed, take the Biblical description on how the atmosphere appeared from the creation to the Flood, and make a conclusion upon that, the following will have to be taken into consideration.
1. Gen 2:5-6 says that in those days it did not rain upon the face of the Earth.
2. A mist rose from the land and watered the whole face of the ground.
3. Taken the Nebual theory into consideration that the Earth was a collection of Liqiod, Solids and Gas, which is the description comming from Genesis and science uses as their model on the formation of the Solar system...
4. Taking modern scientific discoveries that proves the Earth was a wet ball of moist mud with a wet atmosphere surrounding it,
5. using zircon crystals, and silver isotopes. proving the Earth was very wet when it shaped.
6. Discovering at the Kola drill hole that there is huge abbundance of water in the Earths mantle and crust,
7. Taking seismic evidence that huge oceans of water, larger than all the ocians on earth, exists beneath Asia...
8. The Bible described rain lasting 40 days and nights.
9. That a rainbow is said to appear for the first time after the flood of Genesis...

Then there is only one possible wat to deduct the compilation of the atmosphere before and after this flood.
1. It was a gasseous atmosphere much larger than today, containing a lot of water mist / fog.
2. This water fell onto the Earth in 40 days of non stop rain.
Which left a "cleared up" Atmosphere rendering refraction of light in it for the first time.

Now that we can see what the Bible described on how the atmosphere changed from a foggy to clear entity...
one can then think on what effects the C14 production would have had on the earth during this time, and there after.
It means that before the Flood, C14 production would have been very minimal, bit with a clear atmosphere, it would start to form as we expect it does today.
With further deduction, it would be another 1 000 years to have the atmosphere reach the equlibrium science needs to have to determine c14 / c12 values to determine the dates of animal and plant residues.
If any plant and animal samples living before 3500BC is dated, it will show that there is very little C14, not due to radio active decay, but because there were simply no c 14 in the plants that the organism ate!

It is as if one have 2 vases with black marbles in it. (representing 2 samples of charcoal we wish to date.)
One vase has 100 marbles, and the other has only say... 2.
We know the 100 marbles equals the ammount of c14 in 1950, and we can then deduct that using the 5700 halflife years of C14 to N14...
In the first 5700 years there will be 50 marbles left.
in the next 5700 years, only 25.
in the 3rd period 12...
the fourth 6
the 5th period 3..

therefore the scientist will say the date on the vase with 2 marbles is 28 500 years old.
But what will the scientist say if I tell hom the one vase with 2 marbles was starved from filling the vase with 100 marbles, becase there were no marbles to begin with?
If I tell him that the vase was only opened 3500 years ago to receive C14, ...
He will then have to say, yes, the vase is not 28500 years old, but 3500 years of age.
He will also have to agree that if there was no c14, the vase could be less than 6000 years, but show a C14 date of 50 000 years.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
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.
perhaps you would like to return to the Nebular theory ...
Which Emmanuel Kant took from Genesis...
Which La Place tried to oppose with his theory which was found in error when Hubble used his telescope on mount Wilson in 1925...
which proved that Kant was correct...
Which atheists thought was evidence that the Bible was wrong...
Which they never knew came from the Bible...

If I was an atheist, I would also do my best to fight off any such evidence to save face.

You see, Atheists claim Atheism is not a faith, but based on scientific facts...
Thats untill they realised that their facts are just as flimsy as the accusations they made against the Christian Bible believer's faith.

thats when Atheism turns into a religion where the Atheis must now "believe" that his religion is better than the Christian religion!

Heck, I love the predicament the Atheist finds himself into when there is evidence contrary to their beliefs...I hope you understand my enjoyment in this regard.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member


If you accept the age of the earth, then I'ld guess you accept the science that gives us that age.

Meaning that there are layers in the geological column that have a certain date stamp on them.

When you then find fossils - you know, remains of living things - inside those rocks, then logic dictates that those creature died there while those layers were forming.


:rolleyes:


To name only one of many examples of how it would be ridiculous to accept the age of the earth and yet maintain that life is only a couple thousand years old.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
That's not even close to what I actually said.



And none of them received their nobel for their religious beliefs, as their religious beliefs are 100% irrelevant to the work they actually received the nobel for.

Once again, I can only repeat myself:

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


You should really stop doubling down on your fallacies, especially after they have been pointed out to you.
Exactly my view also.
You said: "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."
Theists dont bother about if science proves the Bible and vice versa.
That is not why they believe in God at all.
Simply put, it is the Atheists who continiously accuse the Theists of not believing the atheists' science for being Theists!
All I do is to show the Atheists that such a game cuts both ways!

Just as the Atheist would like to think they have science as evidence that God does not exist, The Theist can also cherrypick and say, but what about these facts you never thought about?
Therefore,
If the Atheist admits that he is atheist because he "Believes" there is no God...
I will be happy to say, cool, I respect your religion.
But as soon as the atheist says... I am an atheist because there is no evidence of God!
They are too ashamed to call their beliefs a religion, and they want to revoke the "Science proves God does not exist" argument.
But they never keep in mind that there are many scientists in the scientific cream who believes in God.
Atheists do not have any copyright on science!
Period!
Science is not the atheist's weapon to arm themself to belittle the Bible, God, and the Christian.
It is a tool to use to improve Humans life on this earth!
Anything else about science is money wasted on futile projects, such as sending people to mars, or building bigger colliders that will not have any bennefit to anyone but self poisenous egoistic scientists.
just my view.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Odd that no actual examples were provided.
:shrug:
I posted links everytime I made a statement in a post.
I dont think it is practical to post it over and over again.
But if there is a specific link you want on a claim I made, just ask and I will provide it to you.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
And they do not even appear to have heard of fission-track dating.
Yip, I understand the dating method very well.
But, what does your post imply on why Creationists dont know about Fision track dating?
I have never claimed the Earth or the universe to be young!
The Bible does not claim any such facts, but it does claim that life is not older than 7000 years at most.
Perhaps you are confusing my statements on C14 with U238 dating.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
perhaps you would like to return to the Nebular theory ...
Which Emmanuel Kant took from Genesis...
Which La Place tried to oppose with his theory which was found in error when Hubble used his telescope on mount Wilson in 1925...
which proved that Kant was correct...
Which atheists thought was evidence that the Bible was wrong...
Which they never knew came from the Bible...
Isn't this you being "off topic?" Hahaha... what a joke. You're committing the same exact "sin" you called me on by bringing some other junk into the conversation. I don't care about Emmanuel Kant, I don't care about La Place. If you have the goods (as in, the evidence) then you don't need to make such wild and obscure leaps and appeals to authority. An honest "authority" would understand and admit that they only ever revealed what was already there, and that their involvement was only tangential in nature, not necessary or particularly relevant. You sure do like to throw names around though. Telling, in my opinion.

If I was an atheist, I would also do my best to fight off any such evidence to save face.
I only want to know the truth as well as I can. That's it. And as far as I can tell, no God claim has ever come close to providing anything compellingly "true." Not even close. Even you, here, you're only doing your best to discredit your discreditors. As in - you're not proving anything from The Bible to be true, just "not in contention" with other things. As I already stated, that doesn't serve as evidence that it is true... only evidence that it may not be false. Those are two totally different things - but in the mind of the theist, they are equated. Again I will call upon the idea that this is entirely shameful.

You see, Atheists claim Atheism is not a faith, but based on scientific facts...
Not this crap again. I don't "put my faith in science." If "science" came forward with a bunch of stuff they couldn't back themselves up on, or that the evidence didn't clearly show to be accurate, then I would easily and readily REJECT IT. Or, at the very least, only peruse it as an interesting topic of discussion, but not adopt it. For example - I am not sold on the idea of the "Heat Death of the Universe." The evidence for it is lacking, in my opinion. I don't believe that microcosmically observable entropic function gives the whole picture of what happens over an expanse of literally endless time in relatively empty space punctuated by pockets of mass - some of which are ever-increasing as they draw more and more and more in. Do I know what happens otherwise? Absolutely not. That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that I don't subscribe to the "Heat Death of the Universe" solely because some scientists prescribe it as the future of our universe. I'd await further unveiling of evidence before I did. What I have heard and read is simply not convincing enough.

I don't give even tacit approval to the findings of science. If something is particularly cogent and predictively descriptive, then obviously it makes sense to perk up an ear, listen, and learn. For example, the germ theory of disease has saved innumerable lives - possibly one of the most important findings of man in his entire history. It works. It's correct. The effectiveness of prescriptions one can draw from the information is astonishing. It's real, in other words, and that can be seen plainly and easily by anyone with even half an eye and a quarter of a brain.

Thats untill they realised that their facts are just as flimsy as the accusations they made against the Christian Bible believer's faith.
This is dumb. Not even worth the digital transmittance that was required to put this on my screen. Your "faith" hasn't produced a single prescription even 1 tenth as effective or useful as something like the germ theory of disease. And your faith has had literal millennia to do so. That is telling, in my opinion. Your faith is garbage in comparison. Absolute garbage.

thats when Atheism turns into a religion where the Atheis must now "believe" that his religion is better than the Christian religion!
I have NO religion. There is no "authority" I accept the edicts or proclamations from without applying initial skepticism. Not one. So keep spouting your nonsense Huguey. You're certainly not impressing me.

Heck, I love the predicament the Atheist finds himself into when there is evidence contrary to their beliefs...I hope you understand my enjoyment in this regard.
It is unfounded "enjoyment" to be sure. You, sitting in your basement, high-fiving yourself with every perceived "win." When in reality you are doing absolutely nothing at all. Awesome. Have fun.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Absent valid, verifiable data/sources, I count that as pure fabrication. C14 occurs naturally.
I wonder why you argue in this way you did with your post.
I said:
Noah was 600 years old...
You answer Impossible...
and so it continues.
Then you said the above just so we all see a fact slipped in by slight of hand.

Sorry sir, would you pelease be so kind as to provide me with any evidence that C14 is not produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit N12?
I woild like to learn what "Natural" metal decays here on Earth to produce C14, other than an atomic explotion and Cosmic rays at the rims of the atmosphere.

Thank you before hand.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
No evidence for a flood.
Light refracts regardless of floods.
But it can not if you are in an environment where fog covers the land.
And believe me, here in South Africa it is something we get a lot off.
And I visited the Littlefalls during a foggy time, and guess what?
No rainbow!
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Scientists prefer not to engage with nonsense. Get a phd in Geology, Publish your ideas in Science Or Nature. Then we will discuss.
Shall I give you a list of Scientists who do choose to engage in Flood geology?
There are hundreds of them.
I know af many who due to scientific discoveries became believers in God!
Why do you think you can claim science for atheism?
That is utterly arrogant.
Gee whizz!
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Well, there you have it.
How did Noah build a boat big enough for representatives of all animal kinds? GodDidIt!
How did all the animals get to where Noah built the ark? GodDidIt!
How did all the animals get fed for forty days and nights? GodDidIt!
How did a comparatively small, unpowered boat, survive the worst seas imaginable? GodDidIt!
How did all the animals get to China and Hawaii and Australia? GodDidIt!

There is really no need to look at other ancient texts and oral histories.
There is no need to discuss how impossible the entire story is.

All you need to know is: GodDidIt!
[/QUOTE]

Good, now that you get the picture....
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
If we, as I proposed, take the Biblical description on how the atmosphere appeared from the creation to the Flood, and make a conclusion upon that, the following will have to be taken into consideration.
1. Gen 2:5-6 says that in those days it did not rain upon the face of the Earth.
2. A mist rose from the land and watered the whole face of the ground.
3. Taken the Nebual theory into consideration that the Earth was a collection of Liqiod, Solids and Gas, which is the description comming from Genesis and science uses as their model on the formation of the Solar system...
4. Taking modern scientific discoveries that proves the Earth was a wet ball of moist mud with a wet atmosphere surrounding it,
5. using zircon crystals, and silver isotopes. proving the Earth was very wet when it shaped.
6. Discovering at the Kola drill hole that there is huge abbundance of water in the Earths mantle and crust,
7. Taking seismic evidence that huge oceans of water, larger than all the ocians on earth, exists beneath Asia...
8. The Bible described rain lasting 40 days and nights.
9. That a rainbow is said to appear for the first time after the flood of Genesis...

Then there is only one possible wat to deduct the compilation of the atmosphere before and after this flood.
1. It was a gasseous atmosphere much larger than today, containing a lot of water mist / fog.
2. This water fell onto the Earth in 40 days of non stop rain.
Which left a "cleared up" Atmosphere rendering refraction of light in it for the first time.

Now that we can see what the Bible described on how the atmosphere changed from a foggy to clear entity...
one can then think on what effects the C14 production would have had on the earth during this time, and there after.
It means that before the Flood, C14 production would have been very minimal, bit with a clear atmosphere, it would start to form as we expect it does today.
With further deduction, it would be another 1 000 years to have the atmosphere reach the equlibrium science needs to have to determine c14 / c12 values to determine the dates of animal and plant residues.
If any plant and animal samples living before 3500BC is dated, it will show that there is very little C14, not due to radio active decay, but because there were simply no c 14 in the plants that the organism ate!

It is as if one have 2 vases with black marbles in it. (representing 2 samples of charcoal we wish to date.)
One vase has 100 marbles, and the other has only say... 2.
We know the 100 marbles equals the ammount of c14 in 1950, and we can then deduct that using the 5700 halflife years of C14 to N14...
In the first 5700 years there will be 50 marbles left.
in the next 5700 years, only 25.
in the 3rd period 12...
the fourth 6
the 5th period 3..

therefore the scientist will say the date on the vase with 2 marbles is 28 500 years old.
But what will the scientist say if I tell hom the one vase with 2 marbles was starved from filling the vase with 100 marbles, becase there were no marbles to begin with?
If I tell him that the vase was only opened 3500 years ago to receive C14, ...
He will then have to say, yes, the vase is not 28500 years old, but 3500 years of age.
He will also have to agree that if there was no c14, the vase could be less than 6000 years, but show a C14 date of 50 000 years.
Why do you need a mist to rise out of the ground to water the ground?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
If we, as I proposed, take the Biblical description on how the atmosphere appeared from the creation to the Flood, and make a conclusion upon that, the following will have to be taken into consideration.
1. Gen 2:5-6 says that in those days it did not rain upon the face of the Earth.
2. A mist rose from the land and watered the whole face of the ground.
3. Taken the Nebual theory into consideration that the Earth was a collection of Liqiod, Solids and Gas, which is the description comming from Genesis and science uses as their model on the formation of the Solar system...
4. Taking modern scientific discoveries that proves the Earth was a wet ball of moist mud with a wet atmosphere surrounding it,
5. using zircon crystals, and silver isotopes. proving the Earth was very wet when it shaped.
6. Discovering at the Kola drill hole that there is huge abbundance of water in the Earths mantle and crust,
7. Taking seismic evidence that huge oceans of water, larger than all the ocians on earth, exists beneath Asia...
8. The Bible described rain lasting 40 days and nights.
9. That a rainbow is said to appear for the first time after the flood of Genesis...

Then there is only one possible wat to deduct the compilation of the atmosphere before and after this flood.
1. It was a gasseous atmosphere much larger than today, containing a lot of water mist / fog.
2. This water fell onto the Earth in 40 days of non stop rain.
Which left a "cleared up" Atmosphere rendering refraction of light in it for the first time.

Now that we can see what the Bible described on how the atmosphere changed from a foggy to clear entity...
one can then think on what effects the C14 production would have had on the earth during this time, and there after.
It means that before the Flood, C14 production would have been very minimal, bit with a clear atmosphere, it would start to form as we expect it does today.
With further deduction, it would be another 1 000 years to have the atmosphere reach the equlibrium science needs to have to determine c14 / c12 values to determine the dates of animal and plant residues.
If any plant and animal samples living before 3500BC is dated, it will show that there is very little C14, not due to radio active decay, but because there were simply no c 14 in the plants that the organism ate!

It is as if one have 2 vases with black marbles in it. (representing 2 samples of charcoal we wish to date.)
One vase has 100 marbles, and the other has only say... 2.
We know the 100 marbles equals the ammount of c14 in 1950, and we can then deduct that using the 5700 halflife years of C14 to N14...
In the first 5700 years there will be 50 marbles left.
in the next 5700 years, only 25.
in the 3rd period 12...
the fourth 6
the 5th period 3..

therefore the scientist will say the date on the vase with 2 marbles is 28 500 years old.
But what will the scientist say if I tell hom the one vase with 2 marbles was starved from filling the vase with 100 marbles, becase there were no marbles to begin with?
If I tell him that the vase was only opened 3500 years ago to receive C14, ...
He will then have to say, yes, the vase is not 28500 years old, but 3500 years of age.
He will also have to agree that if there was no c14, the vase could be less than 6000 years, but show a C14 date of 50 000 years.
All I can get from this is you have no idea about the science you are trying to wish away to the cornfield.

If the atmosphere of the earth were thick with water vapor to the point you could water the ground with it the temperature would run beyond what is capable of sustaining life as it exists on earth.

You are just asserting that there was no C14 and building a strange narrative to go along with that. It demonstrates nothing.

I am sorry, but there is nothing that indicates a biblical-style flood ever happened and based on some well-understood physics, couldn't happen.
 
Top