Localized Flood

[gnostic]

Over 150 years of modern academic geology is how I confirm the knowledge of the age and nature of the deposition of the rocks and strata involved.



By what you know . . . ?!?!?! What is your education and experience in science and geology that qualifies you to make the above assertions?.

Your making judgments based on the ignorance of the knowledge of science, geology, and archaeology is appalling. Radiometric dating is reliable despite your ignorant assertions, but I do not need radiometric dating alone, because I can just use the stratigraphy of geology to date the layers of the different kinds of rocks. The scientist were dating the strategraphy of the earth as millions of years old long before radiometric dating has been used. You are neglecting the reality that radiometric dating is used widely to confirm events, places and people in Biblical history. As a geologist with over 50 years experience I understand the stratigraphy and radiometric dating, and you apparently lack the basic knowledge of the earth, and rocks and science.

By the way there is no direct relationship of evolution and radiometric dating. The hypothesis proposed by Darwin was not based on radiometric dating, and his predictions have been confirmed by all the research and finds over the past 170 years+.

I only did one year, or more precisely, one semester only, in geology, and 2 semesters on soil mechanism.

I don't consider myself to be a geologist, nor an expert, because what I had studied, was pretty basic, and the curriculum only covered what it is pertaining to my course, civil engineering. So my geology subject had only rudimentary introduction on how rocks formed and weathering rocks, and their use in foundation for construction.

What it didn't cover stratigraphy or dating rocks or anything that more advanced. It never covered fossils.

Anything that I had learned about stratigraphy, radiometry, geochronology over the years, I read up in my own time and simply because I am curious about science. So that doesn't make me an expert on the matters; I know my limitations.

Unfortunately creationists don't think there are any limitation of their own personal knowledge and education, or the limitations their scriptures and beliefs.

Seriously, why bring up radiometric dating when that person (creationist) has never study geology before, never work in the field, or never use this dating method before. It only make the creationists looking foolish.

One of the things creationists like to bring up, is how inaccurate radiocarbon (C-14) dating is.

But every geologists, archaeologists and palaeontologists know the limitation of C-14, and often don't use C-14 dating if they know it is older than 50,000 years old, then they would use different radiometric dating methods, like K-Ar (potassium-argon) method or U-Pb (uranium-lead) method. These isotopes have far greater half-life, so they can measure rocks and rock minerals that are older than a million or even older than a billion years old, and are more reliable and more precise than radiocarbon.

Other dating method they could use are stratigraphy and luminescence.

Why are creationists so obsessed with radiocarbon dating, while completely ignoring alternatives?

 

[1213]

...It only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed. Do you remember when Jesus and Satan went to the top of a high mountain and saw all of the Earth? That can only be done on a flat Earth, and that is only one example.

Even in flat world you couldn’t normally see for miles. By what the Bible tells, I think what happened was that Jesus saw the things in visions. Reason why I think so is that things like glory is not seen in the way as we normally look in the physical world. Glory is seen by describing things.

Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory.
Matt. 4:8

And important thing to understand, it doesn’t tell earth is flat. Bible doesn’t say in any pace that earth is flat. It is just a wrong interpretation.

 

[1213]

So you do think that the Earth (and plants on it!) existed before the Sun?

I believe what the Bible tells. Plants could have existed without the sun. Plants don’t die in one day without the sun. Also, there was light. And it is also probable that plants existed as seeds, because:

… no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth…
Gen. 2:5

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even in flat world you couldn’t normally see for miles. By what the Bible tells, I think what happened was that Jesus saw the things in visions. Reason why I think so is that things like glory is not seen in the way as we normally look in the physical world. Glory is seen by describing things.

Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory.
Matt. 4:8

And important thing to understand, it doesn’t tell earth is flat. Bible doesn’t say in any pace that earth is flat. It is just a wrong interpretation.

The visions excuse still fails. Why go to a high place if it was a vision? A vision could be seen at sea level. The only world where one could see all of it from a high place is a flat Earth. That verse speaks of a Flat Earth. I can name others. Do you think that there are any that describe the Earth as a globe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe what the Bible tells. Plants could have existed without the sun. Plants don’t die in one day without the sun. Also, there was light. And it is also probable that plants existed as seeds, because:

… no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth…
Gen. 2:5

All that showed was that the writers of the Bible did not understand how the light came from the Sun. If you read the Bible it does not name the Sun as the source of daylight. Rather it "ruled the day".

 

[shunyadragon]

One of the things creationists like to bring up, is how inaccurate radiocarbon (C-14) dating is.

But every geologists, archaeologists and palaeontologists know the limitation of C-14, and often don't use C-14 dating if they know it is older than 50,000 years old, then they would use different radiometric dating methods, like K-Ar (potassium-argon) method or U-Pb (uranium-lead) method. These isotopes have far greater half-life, so they can measure rocks and rock minerals that are older than a million or even older than a billion years old, and are more reliable and more precise than radiocarbon.
Other dating method they could use are stratigraphy and luminescence.

Why are creationists so obsessed with radiocarbon dating, while completely ignoring alternatives?

The Fundamentalist Creationists have an odd Schizophrenic relationship with C14 dating. It does date some events, places, and people well within the Biblical history, but than again it reveals the errors and contradictions in the Bible. It is the other older radiometric dating that they object to the most, because it describes and confirms an ancient universe, earth and life billions of years old. I can do the same with other dating methods, but radiometric dating provides a more accurate prediction and confirmation of dating everything.

 

[1213]

All that showed was that the writers of the Bible did not understand how the light came from the Sun. If you read the Bible it does not name the Sun as the source of daylight. Rather it "ruled the day".

I think you don’t understand what the Bible tells. And I think you don’t even want to understand. I think you and all anti Jesus people need bad interpretations of what the Bible tells, because then they don’t have to accept all the more important things like “love your neighbor as yourself”.

Why go to a high place if it was a vision? A vision could be seen at sea level. The only world where one could see all of it from a high place is a flat Earth. That verse speaks of a Flat Earth. I can name others. Do you think that there are any that describe the Earth as a globe?

Maybe it was because then those who don’t like truth and don’t remain in truth, can be deceived more easily by the one who took Jesus to the mountain.

Mountain is peaceful place to show the matters, perhaps that was the reason. But what ever the reason was, we have no reason to think the story means Bible is saying planet is flat.

Bible tells earth means dry land. And dry land was the original single continent. Continents are not globes. They can be parts of a globe.

That is why it would not be reasonable to call earth globe, because it is just one part of the globe, in Biblical point of view.

The real problem in this is that people try to replace Bible definitions with their own modern definitions. That obviously leads to problems. But none of them is really Biblical problem. Everyone who remains in truth, can see clearly, unfortunately it seems that many hate truth and don’t want to see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you don’t understand what the Bible tells. And I think you don’t even want to understand. I think you and all anti Jesus people need bad interpretations of what the Bible tells, because then they don’t have to accept all the more important things like “love your neighbor as yourself”.

I understand what the Bible tells. You may have a different interpretation.

Maybe it was because then those who don’t like truth and don’t remain in truth, can be deceived more easily by the one who took Jesus to the mountain.

Mountain is peaceful place to show the matters, perhaps that was the reason. But what ever the reason was, we have no reason to think the story means Bible is saying planet is flat.

Bible tells earth means dry land. And dry land was the original single continent. Continents are not globes. They can be parts of a globe.

That is why it would not be reasonable to call earth globe, because it is just one part of the globe, in Biblical point of view.

The real problem in this is that people try to replace Bible definitions with their own modern definitions. That obviously leads to problems. But none of them is really Biblical problem. Everyone who remains in truth, can see clearly, unfortunately it seems that many hate truth and don’t want to see it.

If anyone does not like the truth it is Bible literalists. Let's leave your failed arguments for now. You are only offering excuses. Not explanations.

Can you find any verses that describe the Earth as being a sphere or a globe?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe what the Bible tells. Plants could have existed without the sun. Plants don’t die in one day without the sun. Also, there was light.

But we know that the Sun was formed before the Earth. And we know that plants arose long after that.

And it is also probable that plants existed as seeds, because:

… no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth…
Gen. 2:5

More likely: the Genesis 1 account and the Genesis 2 account contradict each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you don’t understand what the Bible tells. And I think you don’t even want to understand. I think you and all anti Jesus people need bad interpretations of what the Bible tells, because then they don’t have to accept all the more important things like “love your neighbor as yourself”.

I'm fine with "love your neighbour as yourself;" I'm less okay with things like "slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling as to the Lord" and "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man."

Still, none of these are why I take Genesis at face value (still wrong, but at face value). And since these passages tend to get ignored by modern Christians anyhow, it doesn't seem like they come as a package deal with believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[1213]

But we know that the Sun was formed before the Earth. And we know that plants arose long after that.

Please tell, how do we ”know” that?

More likely: the Genesis 1 account and the Genesis 2 account contradict each other.

That is not true. You can’t show any contradiction in them, without adding own meanings to them.

 

[Muffled]

You are not being consistent. Didn't you post about the Ark being found in the "mountains of Ararat"?

I believe I did not. I doubt the ark would have been preserved at all unless buried in ice and I don't know the odds of that in southern Iran. It could also be preserved if buried in sand but how much sand does one get on a mountain slope?

 

[Muffled]

Oops, my bad. You said mountains of Iran. That would still make it a worldwide flood.

I believe I would not say that the mountains of Iran are all over the world nor would I say the flood exceeded the heights of the mountains in Iran.

 

[Muffled]

I know. Strangely enough we only find evidence for floods in river valley's and flood plains. It is almost as if Noah's flood never happened.

I believe yo should remember the Mesopotamian valley has a large river running through it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I did not. I doubt the ark would have been preserved at all unless buried in ice and I don't know the odds of that in southern Iran. It could also be preserved if buried in sand but how much sand does one get on a mountain slope?

Okay, with so many varied beliefs among Christians it is hard to keep track of what each one thinks happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I would not say that the mountains of Iran are all over the world nor would I say the flood exceeded the heights of the mountains in Iran.

They don't need to be. You see water does not like slopes. It tends to go down them. It would take a global flood to flood the mountains of Iraq. Water does not pile up in one location. To flood the mountains in Iran would take a worldwide flood. One that would leave evidence all around the globe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe yo should remember the Mesopotamian valley has a large river running through it.

Two actually. And that river did have a significant flood in the past. That could have been the inspiration of the myth. Myths are often based upon actual events. Of course the Ark part is nonsense:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please tell, how do we ”know” that?

By multiple independent lines of evidence. Do you really want me to go into the details?

That is not true. You can’t show any contradiction in them, without adding own meanings to them.

You mean the way you added your own meanings to reinterpret "grass and fruit-bearing trees" as "not grass and fruit-bearing trees at all, but the seeds for them?"

Here's the order of creation in Genesis 2:

- dry land
- water
- man (male only)
- plants
- animals
- woman

Compare to the Genesis 1 version:
- water
- light
- dry land (edit: and the solid dome of the sky)
- plants
- the Sun and Moon
- animals
- humans (male and female together)

They contradict each other.

 

[1213]

By multiple independent lines of evidence. Do you really want me to go into the details?

It would be nice to see. But don’t bother, because I know you have nothing meaningful.

Here's the order of creation in Genesis 2:

- dry land
- water
- man (male only)
- plants
- animals
- woman

That is not correct. Genesis 2 doesn’t tell plants were created after people. It tells plants didn’t grow yet, because there had not rained yet.

No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,
Gen. 2:5

It also doesn’t tell that animals were not created before man. It tells God formed animals for man, but it is possible they existed outside the garden of Eden already.

 

[metis]

Theologians call these differences "variations" since they don't like to assume they're contradictions or are compatible.

As far as the order is concerned in the two Creation accounts, it is different if taken literally but may not be if one believes that the 2:4 account is just a general rehash of the 1:1 account.