Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I dont quite get your question.
Noah was 600 years old with the flood, and lived another 350 years.
He was born 2948 BC and died 1998 BC.
The Flood happened in about 1650 after Adam and Eve were created.

And you think this matches up with the findings of science concerning the age of the break up of pangea, the age of the various mountain regions like the Alps, the Himalaya's etc?

And then you wonder that we laugh when you say that you are scientifically "informed".

In a world where there was little cosmic radiation, and no Ultra violet rays damaging life, as well as a total abscense of C14 radiation, the Earth was a tropical rainforrest from one end to the other.Plantlife would have been immencely thick and lush, and man would have lived for hundreds of years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not even going to bother unpacking this ignorant word salad.

 

[firedragon]

He was born 2948 BC and died 1998 BC.

You said "1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest."

Does what you said in point 1 match with the time you yourself mentioned above? Was the earth much smoother, no content plate movement, infancy, icy collection warming up on the surface, appearance of water, etc etc happen in the 2900's BC?

Can you provide some scientist or someone in the relevant field who claims this only happened about 5,000 years ago?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Here is another nice link to see that Radio carbon poisening does have an effect on out lives and ages.

Recycling greenhouse gas fossil fuel emissions into low radiocarbon food products to reduce human genetic damage

Mmmm, so the Bible knew one will age faster with a clear sky, more Ultraviolet, and Cosmic radiation.
Interesting that science actually confirms something the Author of the Bible told us some 3500 years ago!

 

[SA Huguenot]

And you think this matches up with the findings of science concerning the age of the break up of pangea, the age of the various mountain regions like the Alps, the Himalaya's etc?

And then you wonder that we laugh when you say that you are scientifically "informed".

Well, you tell me how they got the dates of say, the Himalyas.
Lets see!

 

[firedragon]

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

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

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

Are you claiming that Carbon 14 dating is used for dating the earth and it proves that it is like 6000 years old?

 

[SA Huguenot]

OK... here is what I wrote when this topic came up before (no need to expend energy coming up with new responses to the same-old):

Bison are clean, meaning, according to some, that 7 pair of them were to be on the ark. According to the Wiki, "...European bison can weigh from 800 to 1,000 kg (1,800 to 2,200 lb)." Lets go with an average - 2000 lb.

Just the 7 pair of the bison kind represent about 28,000 lbs of bison. The Wiki tells us that "European bison feed predominantly on grasses... an adult male can consume 32 kg of food in a day." Creation dot com claims they were on the ark for 364 days.(not the 375 JW does - and yes, I am aware of the wiggles that the YECs use - they could have been babies, blah blah blah - not buying it - none of that is stated in Genesis).

So, just for the bison, 600 year old Noah (I read somewhere that those ages are actually months, which would be more reality-based, putting Noah at 50 when he built the ark) had to load some 3.5 million Kg of food - 8 million pounds of food. I found various estimates for water consumption - let's say 10 gallons/day. About 50,000 gallons. Now, one will be tempted to claim that it was raining for 40 days, so they didn't need to store water!

Ok, but what about the 324 days they were on the ark and it wasn't raining?

Bottom line, just for the Bison-Kind, we need space for them (~10 feet long, ~4 feet wide) 40 sqft/bison - 560 square feet for the Bison Kind (that is if they were packed like sardines; also, ~6 feet tall, so ~3300 cubic feet).

Now back to that food and water - a gallon of water takes up about 0.13 cubic feet, so 6500 cubic feet of water.
For the food, for simplicity I will use a bale of hay as a reference - I found on the webs that "The dimension of a small bale held together by three strings is approximately 16” high x 22” wide x 44” long and usually weighs 100lbs. " - so, 8 million/100 = 80,000 bales, at 16x22x44 hay bale size = ~10 cubic feet = 800,000 cubic feet.

So, 800,000+6500+560 = 807,060 cubic feet JUST FOR BISON-KIND.

According to biblestudy.org, the total volume of the ark was 1.5 million cubic feet - using an 18 inch cubit. AIG prefers a 20.4 inch cubit - I will just pad the volume up to, say, 1.8 million cubic feet.

But that is just open space - the ark had 3 floors, and you would need internal bracing, ramps/stairways, enclosures, etc. - all of which take up space. None of the ark size estimates I came across even mentioned any of that - but let's say all that accounts for, say 70,000 cubic feet - so we are back down to about 1.73 million cubic feet.

So, 1.73 million cubic feet total usable ark volume - 807,000 cubic feet for animal, food, water storage for the bison kind = 923,000 cubic feet left...


That is, almost HALF of the entire internal volume of the ark is needed JUST to fit in the bison and its food and water!

Then we have cattle - 14 of them.

Deer - 14 of them.

Elk, moose, reindeer - 14 each of them.

And the elephant Kind? Just 1 of them (but to account for all of the Elephantids, gomphotheres and such - that will require a good amount of post-flood macroevolution!), but they are bigger and eat more than any of the above.

And dinosaurs - 1 seismosaurus kind and the ark is keel-up..


Bottom line - it really does not matter one hoot if the ark could have floated on paper, or even in real life - it could not possibly have held all it needed to by virtue of Jehovah's command to bring living creatures “of every sort of flesh, two of each" or 7 pairs of clean animals, no matter what the smaller ones were.

Even if I omit the water storage and arbitrarily half the amount of space needed for the Bison-Kind, this is DEVASTATING for a reality-based ark tale.

The creationist is forced to remove themselves from the arena of mere plausibility of the ark floating, and rely 100% on God magic to make their tale possible, and thus, creationism is NOT reality-based, or scientific.

Oh - and a question - why are these critters "abominations"? Didn't Jehovah create them? Why did Jehovah create abominations?
Deuteronomy 14:1-29
“You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. “You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. ...

ADDENDUM: I just realized I made a math error - a bale of hay is closer to 8.6 cubic feet, not 10 - I don't feel like re-doing all the calculations, but I also don't think it really matters - even if the result is that the Bison-Kind, their food and water only take up 1/4 of the ark, it STILL shows, when one considers all of the other large mammal-Kinds that need to be accommodated, that the ark story CANNOT actually do what it is described as having done, whether it 'floats' or not.​

OK!
So why do you think Noah had 7 pairs of adult Bison on the ark?
Microevolution pal, with juvenile bovines.
Why not?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Are you claiming that Carbon 14 dating is used for dating the earth and it proves that it is like 6000 years old?

No, Carbon 14 dates only the age when living things died.
Cant date rocks, and it can not extend further thn 54000 years.
And then science is not sure on the amount of C14 during that time.
If, say we use the Biblical version, there was no C14 in the atmosphere 4500 years ago, any organic matter tested will show a false date of 10th of thousands of years.
Science does not know when the atmosphere reached equilibreum.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Do you understand how badly the OP's "version" fails. He will not even explain it. He tried to claim that the Earth was once wet. That was over 4 billion years before people were here. It is pretty hard to have a Noah's Ark story when there was no Noah.

You must have some basic requirements for your version of the myth.

Was the whole Earth covered with water, as it says in Genesis?

Did everyone but Noah and his family die? As it says in Genesis.

Did all of the land animals die, as in the Genesis myth. Well except for those on the ark of course.

Not willing to clearly state one's beliefs indicate that one does not really believe the myth.

Now, lets look at the assumptions on science.
They need to claim that the Earth was wet, but millions of years ago!
Why millions of years.
When did it dry up?
Why is it a scientific fact that the Sahara was a lush savannah, with rivers and lakes?
Why did we discover Whale fossils in Chile in the atacama desert.
Why is there evidence that the namib desert was forrest.
Then again, the North American Continent had evidence of huge lakes such as Missoula, and the scablands as evidence that the interior lake flooded the area.
I might remind you all how all the Geologists laughed at J Harlan Bretz when he proposed this huge flood, only to be proven correct and to receive the Penrose Medal, the Geological Society of America's highest award, in 1979, at the age of 96. After this award, he told his son: "All my enemies are dead, so I have no one to gloat over."
Bretz was scolded by the greatest of snobbery by the scientists of his day for an attempt to give evidence against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism. They hated the fact that there might be any evidence of a catastrophic event that changed the Geology.
Well, it took the scientific world from 1923 to 1979 to realise that Bretz was correct.
56 years!
Only that those foolish scientists were dead by that time thinking they had all the knowledge and hated any reference to a flood of "Biblical proportions"!

Yes, the Earth was wet when it was created, science agrees.
It was wet 4500 years ago, science agrees.
It dried up and the ocean filled with more water, such as evidence at the Blue hole at Light reef suggests with the study of Stalactites showing the sea rose by almost 400 jmeters in 3 000 years.
This scientific myth that humans are responsible for global warming is incorrect.
The Earth has been heating up over the last 4500 years.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Perhaps I don't believe it as written - or at least as interpreted - because I have questions.

For example - how could the author of Genesis - whoever that was - possibly claim that water had covered the whole Earth, or that there were no more survivors or that all other animals died?

I mean - unless they had temporary omniscience - how could they make that testimony?

I'm inclined to believe that what was recorded is what the author "believed" was happening - not exactly what did happen.

All I know is that something happened that caused a great loss of life.

You understand that not all beliefs are completely solidified in peoples minds?

That they may still be working things out?

Just because someone isn't willing to commit 100% to an idea - that doesn't mean they don't believe or that they don't have a willingness to believe.

Believing in something means you don't know everything - which is why you believe it.

Have you ever thought that God spoke to people before?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The only magic I find is that the Atheist dont like this magic.

This statement is entirely nonsensical.

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

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.

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.

 

[gnostic]

No, Carbon 14 dates only the age when living things died.
Cant date rocks, and it can not extend further thn 54000 years.
And then science is not sure on the amount of C14 during that time.
If, say we use the Biblical version, there was no C14 in the atmosphere 4500 years ago, any organic matter tested will show a false date of 10th of thousands of years.
Science does not know when the atmosphere reached equilibreum.

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.

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

Beside that carbon-14 isn’t the only radiometric dating method available to scientists.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now, lets look at the assumptions on science.
They need to claim that the Earth was wet, but millions of years ago!
Why millions of years.
When did it dry up?
Why is it a scientific fact that the Sahara was a lush savannah, with rivers and lakes?
Why did we discover Whale fossils in Chile in the atacama desert.
Why is there evidence that the namib desert was forrest.
Then again, the North American Continent had evidence of huge lakes such as Missoula, and the scablands as evidence that the interior lake flooded the area.
I might remind you all how all the Geologists laughed at J Harlan Bretz when he proposed this huge flood, only to be proven correct and to receive the Penrose Medal, the Geological Society of America's highest award, in 1979, at the age of 96. After this award, he told his son: "All my enemies are dead, so I have no one to gloat over."
Bretz was scolded by the greatest of snobbery by the scientists of his day for an attempt to give evidence against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism. They hated the fact that there might be any evidence of a catastrophic event that changed the Geology.
Well, it took the scientific world from 1923 to 1979 to realise that Bretz was correct.
56 years!
Only that those foolish scientists were dead by that time thinking they had all the knowledge and hated any reference to a flood of "Biblical proportions"!

Yes, the Earth was wet when it was created, science agrees.
It was wet 4500 years ago, science agrees.
It dried up and the ocean filled with more water, such as evidence at the Blue hole at Light reef suggests with the study of Stalactites showing the sea rose by almost 400 jmeters in 3 000 years.
This scientific myth that humans are responsible for global warming is incorrect.
The Earth has been heating up over the last 4500 years.

LOL, no those are not the "assumptions of science".

Like many you are accusing the sciences of your sins. You post is just a long list of nonsense. I don't deal with Gish Gallops. If you insist then refuting one claim refutes all. You could try to make your claims properly and support them individually. But I can guarantee you that there are no "assumptions" in the sciences as you stated. If you want to claim otherwise you took on a burden of proof when you used the term "assumption".

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, Carbon 14 dates only the age when living things died.
Cant date rocks, and it can not extend further thn 54000 years.
And then science is not sure on the amount of C14 during that time.
If, say we use the Biblical version, there was no C14 in the atmosphere 4500 years ago, any organic matter tested will show a false date of 10th of thousands of years.
Science does not know when the atmosphere reached equilibreum.

We use other dating methods to date the Earth. We know that the Earth has been here for billions of years. That life has been on the Earth for billions of years. And that the Sun has been putting out the same radiation for billions of years so we can know that the atmosphere has been in rough "equilibrium" C14 wise for almost all of that time. There will be minor fluctuations that would change the amount of C14 produced. That is why for more accuracy that we need to add a correction factor.

And yes, if the Bible was right about when the Earth was formed our dates would be off. But the evidence for an old Earth is overwhelming. So much so that you would have to have a god that left false evidence behind. A form of lying. If God lies then all bets are off. But one cannot believe such a God when he promises that you will go to heaven either. It is a losing argument to claim that God lied since it shoots holes all the way through your beliefs.

 

[gnostic]

Have you ever thought that God spoke to people before?

How would you know?

You don’t, because it is all taken on by blind faith. There are no ways to verify what they say or write to be true.

How do you know they are not making it all up? How do you know they are not fools or delusional?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK!
So why do you think Noah had 7 pairs of adult Bison on the ark?
Microevolution pal, with juvenile bovines.
Why not?

And you seem to believe that one could wake up in a cheap hotel bathtub filled with ice missing a kidney

 

[tas8831]

It's obviously a cross of both - kinda like a pizza dough being thrown in the air - not a ball anymore but not quite a disc.

What does that even mean?

 

[tas8831]

OK!
So why do you think Noah had 7 pairs of adult Bison on the ark?

Because the ancient Hebrews had arbitrary and dilly rules about clean/unclean as indicated in the bible?

Microevolution pal, with juvenile bovines.
Why not?

What a great foundation to rest your "faith" on, pal!
"Why not?"

Why go extra-biblical? Why ignore the obvious shortcomings of the bible tale? Why ignore most of what was written, such as:

That is, almost HALF of the entire internal volume of the ark is needed JUST to fit in the bison and its food and water!

Then we have cattle - 14 of them.

Deer - 14 of them.

Elk, moose, reindeer - 14 each of them.

And the elephant Kind? Just 1 of them (but to account for all of the Elephantids, gomphotheres and such - that will require a good amount of post-flood macroevolution!), but they are bigger and eat more than any of the above.

And dinosaurs - 1 seismosaurus kind and the ark is keel-up..


Bottom line - it really does not matter one hoot if the ark could have floated on paper, or even in real life - it could not possibly have held all it needed to by virtue of Jehovah's command to bring living creatures “of every sort of flesh, two of each" or 7 pairs of clean animals, no matter what the smaller ones were...​

I know why, of course.

But do you?

 

[tas8831]

What about termites (Order Blattodea), ants, bees (Order Hymenoptera) and any other eusocial insects? What counts as two. Two termites or two colonies? Or was it just one colony each? Nothing is mentioned about them in the Bible. Any thoughts on how you can have the many species of termite and carpenter ant on a vessel made of wood? Not to mention, the many, many other species of wood boring insects.

Of course, those insects may be of benefit in opening up additional needed space as time went on. Of course, radical, catastrophic marine vehicle remodeling may not be the ideal situation when you have no available anchorage.

Then let's consider some of the other fun and interesting insect species that we all know and love. Nearly 1,100 species of paper wasps and that does not include yellow jackets and hornets. All that would require very special conditions, food and needs. Not to mention that many have a disturbing habit of becoming agitated and stingy. Especially, that Asian giant hornet.

Of course, the Hymenoptera includes the honeybee and a significant number of other bees. Many of which are ground nesting. I imagine a fair quantity of various soils would have to be included in the cargo of the ark.

2,000 species of termites and 150,000 species of Hymenoptera on the ark with numerous other animals seems plausible. I think they could find room if they left out all the other species of insects and just hoped some of those made it on their own.

That story just sounds more and more reasonable the more I think about it.

Come on dude - it is microevolution all the way down! Even when it requires macroevolution (of which speciation is a part)!

 

[tas8831]

Evolution, The religion where one believes your children more human, and your parents more Ape, than you!

My gosh, even your "witty" signature is a strawman.....

 

[firedragon]

Why, because when they lived around 4500 years ago, there was no c14

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.