The great age of some of the Biblical characters

[Darkforbid]

Darkforbid,
It is true that the Bible does not say that the flood of Noah’s day was a global flood, it does show, it seems to me, that saying that the flood waters were 15 cubits above the highest mountains, would lead a thinking person to reason that it had to be global.

Well I personally believe there was a flood in that area around that time but oral history leads to much being changed over the millennia

Oh and it's well known tribes in that area counted full moon cycles not years which would make noah 50 at the time of the flood not 600

 

[sooda]

Well I personally believe there was a flood in that area around that time but oral history leads to much being changed over the millennia

Oh and it's well known tribes in that area counted full moon cycles not years which would make noah 50 at the time of the flood not 600

There was... It was a flood in the Euphrates river basin and left a thick flood sediment.. 2900 BC,

 

[danieldemol]

Well I personally believe there was a flood in that area around that time but oral history leads to much being changed over the millennia

Now you are talking my language

 

[Darkforbid]

Now you are talking my language

Нет я не

 

[Wandering Monk]

Is there any evidence to suggest that people lived a lot longer in Biblical times than people do today? For instance Abraham was supposedly 175 when he died. It doesn't seem credible that people would have lived as long as the Bible claims they did. Have any skeletons been dug up from those days which prove this to be true?

\
Not one shred of forensic evidence at all.

 

[Wandering Monk]

JJ50,
I have seen, on the internet graves, with skeletons in them, that were, well over 15 feet. I do not know if these were fakes, or not.
.

They were fakes.

If you are a literalist it might be interesting that this is from a creationist website.

Giant hoax - creation.com

 

[sojourner]

More research will reveal how they avoided gum disease

I’m guessing dental floss...

 

[JJ50]

I’m guessing dental floss...

And regular dental check ups of course.

 

[SA Huguenot]

There is no scientific evidence of a global flood. Not only that but if the entire surface of the earth was flooded enough to cover mt Everest it still would be flooded because water always travels to the lowest point.

Rainbows have existed as long as atmospheric water has, because the water refracts light, rainbows didn’t just suddenly appear after Noah’s ark. They have been around millions of years.

I also was taught this reasoning about Everest, untill I started to check for myself.
The Earth before the flood was much smoother and flatter on its surface than what we see now.
Everest simply did not exist before the flood due to tectonic plates being disrupted during the flood and afterwards.
if we take into consideration that the Accretion theory on the nebilar theory shaped the earth, it is a fact that the highest mountains before the flood was no more than a few hundred feet and the oceans was also not as deep.

Second, on the Atmosphere.
if the atmosphere was a thick fogg, there would also not have been rainbows.

With the erruption of a water mass of 10 miles deep 100 miles below the surface of the earth (which also fits in with the Nebular theory, Dr Walt Brown on his hydro plate theory), the surface of the Earth was disrupted in a catastrophe resulting in Mountains and ocean trenches forming. All this water filled what we now call our oceans.
Anyhow, It makes sense, Everest is full of sea fossils, which means it was originally subdued in water, just like every other ocean we know of.
So, If Everest was below sea level, and sprouted up after the flood, the argument about an Earth that needed to be filled with 8800meters of water to cover Everest in circumfence, is lost.

 

[sooda]

I also was taught this reasoning about Everest, untill I started to check for myself.
The Earth before the flood was much smoother and flatter on its surface than what we see now.
Everest simply did not exist before the flood due to tectonic plates being disrupted during the flood and afterwards.
if we take into consideration that the Accretion theory on the nebilar theory shaped the earth, it is a fact that the highest mountains before the flood was no more than a few hundred feet and the oceans was also not as deep.

Second, on the Atmosphere.
if the atmosphere was a thick fogg, there would also not have been rainbows.

With the erruption of a water mass of 10 miles deep 100 miles below the surface of the earth (which also fits in with the Nebular theory, Dr Walt Brown on his hydro plate theory), the surface of the Earth was disrupted in a catastrophe resulting in Mountains and ocean trenches forming. All this water filled what we now call our oceans.
Anyhow, It makes sense, Everest is full of sea fossils, which means it was originally subdued in water, just like every other ocean we know of.
So, If Everest was below sea level, and sprouted up after the flood, the argument about an Earth that needed to be filled with 8800meters of water to cover Everest in circumfence, is lost.

Dr Walt Brown is an idiot.

 

[Audie]

I also was taught this reasoning about Everest, untill I started to check for myself.
The Earth before the flood was much smoother and flatter on its surface than what we see now.
Everest simply did not exist before the flood due to tectonic plates being disrupted during the flood and afterwards.
if we take into consideration that the Accretion theory on the nebilar theory shaped the earth, it is a fact that the highest mountains before the flood was no more than a few hundred feet and the oceans was also not as deep.

Second, on the Atmosphere.
if the atmosphere was a thick fogg, there would also not have been rainbows.

With the erruption of a water mass of 10 miles deep 100 miles below the surface of the earth (which also fits in with the Nebular theory, Dr Walt Brown on his hydro plate theory), the surface of the Earth was disrupted in a catastrophe resulting in Mountains and ocean trenches forming. All this water filled what we now call our oceans.
Anyhow, It makes sense, Everest is full of sea fossils, which means it was originally subdued in water, just like every other ocean we know of.
So, If Everest was below sea level, and sprouted up after the flood, the argument about an Earth that needed to be filled with 8800meters of water to cover Everest in circumfence, is lost.

You sure did not check very hard.


The religious mindset is well illustrated by blind
acceptance of this ridiculous idea.

I kind of like it though, as it so completely destroys
the any credibility that such a person may have in
other matters.

Do not attempt any position of responsibility
in life that requires due diligence, being a fiduciary.
It will be a disaster.

 

[JJ50]

Dr Walt Brown is an idiot.

He is a YEC, so is not impartial. Anyone who believes the Earth is only about 10,000 years old is crazy, imo.

 

[Audie]

Dr Walt Brown is an idiot.

Or a cynic.

There is money in youtube
and in fooling the rube.

 

[danieldemol]

I also was taught this reasoning about Everest, untill I started to check for myself.
The Earth before the flood was much smoother and flatter on its surface than what we see now.
Everest simply did not exist before the flood due to tectonic plates being disrupted during the flood and afterwards.
if we take into consideration that the Accretion theory on the nebilar theory shaped the earth, it is a fact that the highest mountains before the flood was no more than a few hundred feet and the oceans was also not as deep.

Second, on the Atmosphere.
if the atmosphere was a thick fogg, there would also not have been rainbows.

With the erruption of a water mass of 10 miles deep 100 miles below the surface of the earth (which also fits in with the Nebular theory, Dr Walt Brown on his hydro plate theory), the surface of the Earth was disrupted in a catastrophe resulting in Mountains and ocean trenches forming. All this water filled what we now call our oceans.
Anyhow, It makes sense, Everest is full of sea fossils, which means it was originally subdued in water, just like every other ocean we know of.
So, If Everest was below sea level, and sprouted up after the flood, the argument about an Earth that needed to be filled with 8800meters of water to cover Everest in circumfence, is lost.

Dr Walt Brown has his degree in mechanical engineering, he has no relevant degree in geology, biology, or anthropology, and going to him for an opinion on any such matter is like taking your car to the dentist when it breaks down.

Geologically speaking, Mt Everest is about 60million years old. It's height is 8,848 metres which is 8,848,000mm. It rises at a height of about 4mm per year. 8,848,000/4 = 2,212,000years for it to have risen that height above sea level (from 0mm above sea level) assuming a constant rate of rising and longer if you consider that it was once below sea level. When did you say Noah's flood was again? Surely not over 2million years ago.

Even if the atmosphere was a thick fog in every land (it wasn't) there would still be rainbows above the fog. Surely an omniscient God would know that.

What caused this so called eruption of water mass if there were no continental drift of techtonic plates prior to it?

What is the independant scientific dating of the sea fossils, do you even know?

Sorry but I think your hypothesis is not in accordance with known scientific evidence.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Dr Walt Brown has his degree in mechanical engineering, he has no relevant degree in geology, biology, or anthropology, and going to him for an opinion on any such matter is like taking your car to the dentist when it breaks down.

Geologically speaking, Mt Everest is about 60million years old. It's height is 8,848 metres which is 8,848,000mm. It rises at a height of about 4mm per year. 8,848,000/4 = 2,212,000years for it to have risen that height above sea level (from 0mm above sea level) assuming a constant rate of rising and longer if you consider that it was once below sea level. When did you say Noah's flood was again? Surely not over 2million years ago.

Even if the atmosphere was a thick fog in every land (it wasn't) there would still be rainbows above the fog. Surely an omniscient God would know that.

What caused this so called eruption of water mass if there were no continental drift of techtonic plates prior to it?

What is the independant scientific dating of the sea fossils, do you even know?

Sorry but I think your hypothesis is not in accordance with known scientific evidence.

Thanks for the critisizm.
How do they date sea fossils?
With the age of the rock.
How do they date the rock?
With the index fossils in the rock.
How do they date the index fossils? with the rock, with the fossil, with the rock with.....
On Walt Brown my reply is that I refered to his theory, which may or may not be correct. It still remains a theory.
One that fits in with the Nebular theory much better than the Hadean theory. As a matter of fact, the hadean theory was proven incorrect with the evidence of Silver ions and Zircon crystals that proved the earth was very wet in its conception.
The Bible say...the spirit hovered above the waters.

Anyhow, I opened another thread where I will discuss the relation between what the Bible say, and what science say.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

 

[danieldemol]

Thanks for the critisizm.
How do they date sea fossils?
With the age of the rock.
How do they date the rock?
With the index fossils in the rock.
How do they date the index fossils? with the rock, with the fossil, with the rock with.....

It is not quite that simple unfortunately. If an ocean deposits for example one layer of sediment per year, one can count back through the layers of sediment to determine how many years ago a fossil was trapped in the sediment. Once a suitable age range for the fossils is determined, in other areas where the sediment has become exposed due to techtonic movement, erosion etc one can then find a layer of fossils that went extinct in a certain time period to determine that that layer of rock is most probably of a certain age. Then there are absolute methods of dating such as radioactive dating of substances within the fossil or rock which can give a suitable age range according to my understanding such as;
Name of Method Age Range of Application Material Dated Methodology
Radiocarbon 1 - 70,000 years Organic material such as bones, wood, charcoal, shells Radioactive decay of 14C in organic matter after removal from bioshpere
K-Ar dating 1,000 - billion of years Potassium-bearing minerals and glasses Radioactive decay of 40K in rocks and minerals
Uranium-Lead 10,000 - billion of years Uranium-bearing minerals Radioactive decay of uranium to lead via two separate decay chains
Uranium series 1,000 - 500,000 years Uranium-bearing minerals, corals, shells, teeth, CaCO3 Radioactive decay of 234U to 230Th
Fission track 1,000 - billion of years Uranium-bearing minerals and glasses Measurement of damage tracks in glass and minerals from the radioactive decay of 238U
Luminescence (optically or thermally stimulated)
1,000 - 1,000,000 years Quartz, feldspar, stone tools, pottery Burial or heating age based on the accumulation of radiation-induced damage to electron sitting in mineral lattices
Electron Spin Resonance (ESR)
1,000 - 3,000,000 years Uranium-bearing materials in which uranium has been Burial age based on abundance of radiation-induced paramagnetic centers in
absorbed from outside sources mineral lattices

Cosmogenic Nuclides 1,000 - 5,000,000 years Typically quartz or olivine from volcanic or sedimentary rocks Radioactive decay of cosmic-ray generated nuclides in surficial environments
Magnetostratigraphy 20,000 - billion of years Sedimentary and volcanic rocks Measurement of ancient polarity of the earth's magnetic field recorded in a stratigraphic succession
Tephrochronology 100 - billions of years Volcanic ejecta Uses chemistry and age of volcanic deposits to establish links between distant stratigraphic successions

If the above table doesn't turn out correctly on your screen refer to Table 1 at Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

On Walt Brown my reply is that I refered to his theory, which may or may not be correct. It still remains a theory.
One that fits in with the Nebular theory much better than the Hadean theory. As a matter of fact, the hadean theory was proven incorrect with the evidence of Silver ions and Zircon crystals that proved the earth was very wet in its conception.

I don't know why you feel their couldn't have been water during the Hadean period, this seems well explained Hadean - Wikipedia

The Bible say...the spirit hovered above the waters.

Anyhow, I opened another thread where I will discuss the relation between what the Bible say, and what science say.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Your welcome, although I would suggest focusing on one claim at a time, rather than just constantly introducing new claims. After all, if even one of the claims of the Bible can be proven to be unscientific it logically follows that it was not written by an omniscient being. So no need to scatter your thoughts everywhere, just focus on one thing at a time until it comes to it's point of complete resolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the critisizm.
How do they date sea fossils?
With the age of the rock.
How do they date the rock?
With the index fossils in the rock.
How do they date the index fossils? with the rock, with the fossil, with the rock with.....
On Walt Brown my reply is that I refered to his theory, which may or may not be correct. It still remains a theory.
One that fits in with the Nebular theory much better than the Hadean theory. As a matter of fact, the hadean theory was proven incorrect with the evidence of Silver ions and Zircon crystals that proved the earth was very wet in its conception.
The Bible say...the spirit hovered above the waters.

Anyhow, I opened another thread where I will discuss the relation between what the Bible say, and what science say.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

No, that is not how they do it. You have been listening to creationist liars and idiots.

They do it with a combination of fossils and radiometric dating. Long before radiometric dating was invented geologists already could date rocks by the fossils in them. Older rocks have younger rocks on top of them. And by comparing layers and fossils all the way around the world they found that they always were to be found in a certain order.

That gave them a relative age, but not an absolute one. For example, they could tell that all Cambrian life was older than Devonian life.

When radiometric dating was invented that allowed them to put real numbers on those relative dates. Most beds cannot be dated by radiometric dating, but volcanic ash and other igneous rocks would allow them to date a specific layer in different areas. As time went on they found more and more ash layers around the world so that by using the fossils found in that layer they built a correspondence between specific fossils and dates.

One thing you should remember about creationists and science, they either do not know what they are talking about, or they are lying when they try to refute evolution and geology.

 

[SA Huguenot]

If an ocean deposits for example one layer of sediment per year, one can count back through the layers of sediment to determine how many years ago a fossil was trapped in the sediment.

I dont know of any sedimentary deposits that was counted layer by layer for 1.5 billion layers. it simply does not exist.
Furthermore, at mount st Helens, in 2 weeks there was millions of layers deposited in a "Geological colom, and we know what that ages are.

Name of Method Age Range of Application Material Dated Methodology

I have never claimed that these radio isometric dating is incorrect at all. But I will obviously reger you to D.A.T.E. who compared these tests with each other, and found that not only does the laboratories discard any date that does not suit their age, but super bias on the interperatation of these samples.
I dont care for any of that, but asked myself this.
What are we testing?
The rock's age?
I never had a problem with any rock being older than 6000 years. It can be 4.5 billion years old and it is still not in contradiction with the Bible.
But to use an assumption that the Fossil was tested by Radioisotope dating, is totally incorrect.
And to say that there are countable layers in a geologic colom, is simply not true.

 

[SA Huguenot]

No, that is not how they do it. You have been listening to creationist liars and idiots.

They do it with a combination of fossils and radiometric dating. Long before radiometric dating was invented geologists already could date rocks by the fossils in them. Older rocks have younger rocks on top of them. And by comparing layers and fossils all the way around the world they found that they always were to be found in a certain order.

That gave them a relative age, but not an absolute one. For example, they could tell that all Cambrian life was older than Devonian life.

When radiometric dating was invented that allowed them to put real numbers on those relative dates. Most beds cannot be dated by radiometric dating, but volcanic ash and other igneous rocks would allow them to date a specific layer in different areas. As time went on they found more and more ash layers around the world so that by using the fossils found in that layer they built a correspondence between specific fossils and dates.

One thing you should remember about creationists and science, they either do not know what they are talking about, or they are lying when they try to refute evolution and geology.

And you should not just discard anything Creationists say.
Look at your solid evidence on dating something with the use of volcanic ash.
There are so many examples of volcanic eruptions, again even mt St Helens, where the layering gives dates in excess of 10 000 years.
and we know it can not even be 50 years old.

 

[danieldemol]

...I dont care for any of that, but asked myself this.
What are we testing?
The rock's age?
I never had a problem with any rock being older than 6000 years. It can be 4.5 billion years old and it is still not in contradiction with the Bible.
But to use an assumption that the Fossil was tested by Radioisotope dating, is totally incorrect.

Did you even read Table 1 at Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable ?

It specifically states that certain fossils can be dated using the methods listed in the table.

You calling it an assumption is rather disingenuous if I may say so.