Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 404 (637651)
10-17-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
10-17-2011 10:58 AM


Re: What's expected?
How high was the highest point above sea level on the land mass at the time of the flood of Noah?
When was the time of the flood of Noah?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 10:58 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 404 (637652)
10-17-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
10-17-2011 11:04 AM


Re: What's expected?
But we do know fairly accurately, it was about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 11:04 AM ICANT has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 48 of 404 (637653)
10-17-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
10-17-2011 10:58 AM


Re: What's expected?
ICANT writes:
No one knows how high that point was. Guesses can be made and assertions can be made. But the facts are missing.
I don't think that any facts are missing. It appears more like facts are being ignored. There may be no notation in the scripture as to the height of the highest land mass. That however doesn't exclude geologists from being able to ascertain the heights of mountains during the specified time.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
Opening your mind to imagination shouldn't close it to reality.
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 10:58 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 11:15 AM rueh has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 49 of 404 (637655)
10-17-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
10-17-2011 11:05 AM


Re: What's expected?
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
When was the time of the flood of Noah?
I can find a lot of guesses.
I can find a lot of assertions.
I can find no facts nailing down when the flood of Noah took place.
According to the story of the text the land mass was still in one place and was divided after flood of Noah.
That being the case there is no way of knowing the elevation of the land mass at the time of the flood of Noah.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2011 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2011 11:33 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 50 of 404 (637656)
10-17-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
10-17-2011 10:58 AM


Making things up
How high was the highest point above sea level on the land mass at the time of the flood of Noah?
It was probably close to what it is now, around 29,000 feet.
This is another bible story that isn't true: about 4,000 years ago the continents were about the same as they are now. To get to the single mass of land you have to go back about 250 million years.
Are you seriously claiming there were people living back then?
Or are you just claiming that the last masses rushed into their current positions in the last 4,000 years and then just as suddenly slowed down to their current rates of movement?
(No wonder no one takes you seriously.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 10:58 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 11:34 AM Coyote has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 51 of 404 (637657)
10-17-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by rueh
10-17-2011 11:10 AM


Re: What's expected?
Hi rueh,
rueh writes:
That however doesn't exclude geologists from being able to ascertain the heights of mountains during the specified time.
What specified time?
The text does not specify a time.
There have been many guesses and assertions but no specified time.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by rueh, posted 10-17-2011 11:10 AM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by rueh, posted 10-17-2011 11:19 AM ICANT has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 52 of 404 (637658)
10-17-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
10-17-2011 11:15 AM


Re: What's expected?
Well there is a time range supplied by coyote here Message 8. I suggest that is the time we are dealing with unless you have any evidence that directly contradicts that range of time.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
Opening your mind to imagination shouldn't close it to reality.
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 11:15 AM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 404 (637661)
10-17-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
10-17-2011 11:12 AM


Re: What's expected?
According to the story of the text the land mass was still in one place and was divided after flood of Noah.
Well that can't be referring to Pangea, because humans didn't exist yet at that time. Humans didn't start existing until about 200,000 years ago, and the land masses were already physically divided by then. So maybe something else is being referred to as "divided", maybe its something like how America was divided into states. Thoughts?
That being the case there is no way of knowing the elevation of the land mass at the time of the flood of Noah.
Well, since Noah was a man, and humans only started to exist about 200,000 years ago, we could determine what the highest elevation was during that time and give ourselves an upper and lower limit. Would that work for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 11:12 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 54 of 404 (637663)
10-17-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Coyote
10-17-2011 11:14 AM


Re: Making things up
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
Or are you just claiming that the last masses rushed into their current positions in the last 4,000 years and then just as suddenly slowed down to their current rates of movement?
Do you have evidence other than the current rates of movement to show that the land masses have been moving for the past 250 million years?
I am making no claims.
I am simply pointing out what the text says.
How can you have a debate when you keep inserting what you think the text says or what someone has said the text says.
You can read the text for yourself and find it does not state what you are argueing against.
I have several days of doctor appointments and when I am through I will start a thread where we can examine exactly what the Bible says concerning the land mass and the flood of Noah.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 10-17-2011 11:14 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 10-17-2011 12:12 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 55 of 404 (637668)
10-17-2011 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
10-17-2011 10:11 AM


Re: What's expected?
What evidence does it leave?
When the tide comes in the rivers run backwards and the water rises. When the tide goes out the flow is reversed.
Very little changes take place from one tide to the other and this has been going on for ages.
"very little changes" is evidence.
NO CHANGES is no evidence.
Additionally, I guarantee you there are bridges, walls, trees, etc which show salt marks all along the height at which the water rises. Salt marks which would still be there if the tide never came in again.
Where does the Bible say the earth was under a MILE+ of water?
Water COVERED the Earth. That means that water was ABOVE whatever the highest mountains were at the time.
You can't have it both ways, Cant. Either the mountains already existed and the water was extremely deep _OR_ the mountains didn't exist and they are the result of the flood and therefore there were MASSIVE changes as a result.
Either/Or. Not both.
According to the text there was one land mass and one body of water at the time of the flood of Noah. The land mass did not look like it does today.
So, magic water brought to us by a Magic Jewish Wizard that magically moves the continents in a way that DOESN'T require the use of any real energy, only magic energy.
Hell, your special pleading has special pleading which in turn has special pleading.
It's a MYTH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 10:11 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 404 (637676)
10-17-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
10-17-2011 11:34 AM


Re: Making things up
Do you have evidence other than the current rates of movement to show that the land masses have been moving for the past 250 million years?
I am making no claims.
I am simply pointing out what the text says.
Then the text is wrong.
You have an insurmountable problem here: the bible says there was one land mass when humans were cavorting about. The time frame is off by some 250 million years.
But if you claim that this all happened in the past 4,350 years or so then you have to explain how the speed of the continents moving about suddenly slowed down when scientists started watching, and further, where all the heat went as continental movement on that order would have generated enough heat to cook things. Oh, don't forget the earthquakes. Movement of the plates a few inches to a few feet cause major earthquakes. What would movement on the order of thousands of miles during the past 4,000 years or so have done? Wouldn't anybody have noticed?
There are just too many mistakes to take that account seriously, and all your "what ifs" don't make it any better.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 11:34 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 57 of 404 (637685)
10-17-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
10-17-2011 10:11 AM


Re: What's expected?
When the tide comes in the rivers run backwards and the water rises. When the tide goes out the flow is reversed.
Very little changes take place from one tide to the other and this has been going on for ages.
The water rose and fell only once during the flood of Noah.
You may not have noticed what you just did there, ICANT. The tides have been washing the Bay of Fundy almost twice a day for 12,000 years or so - ever since the ice cap over the Maritimes melted. The tides have already washed everything that was moveable by their action to where it was fated to go. Each day's tides rearrange some mud, etc., to put back in place six hours later.
The water rising and falling once during your mythical Flud would have left a little silt behind. A little, that is, in the spots where it was 15 cubits deep. Quite a bit, though, in the places where it was deeper. Like all the silt off the high places......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 10:11 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-19-2011 8:48 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 58 of 404 (637722)
10-17-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
10-17-2011 10:58 AM


Re: What's expected?
ICANT writes:
But the mud flats are there when the tide is in and is still there when the tide is out.
Without tides, the mud flats won’t be there. Tides leave evidence. Floods leave evidence,too. We know the difference.
ICANT writes:
They have been there all the time that the tide has rose and fell 50 feet.
Without the tides rising and falling, they won’t be there. Tides leave evidence. We do know what tidal evidence looks like.
ICANT writes:
The water of the flood of Noah rose one time over a period of 40 days and 40 nights and stayed 110 days before it began to return from off the Earth which took another 150 days.
Now that would leave huge evidence. Not only mudflats. It would leave one big mudflat all over the world. More than that, it would leave one layer of sediment you should be able to follow all over the world.
ICANT writes:
So if the water rose over a 40 day period to cover the highest point on the land mass how much did the water have to rise?
You show us. Do the maths. We would love to see.
ICANT writes:
If the water rose as much as it does in the bay of fundy on each tide over a period of 40 days the water would rise 4.000 feet.
Oh, is it? Please show your maths.
ICANT writes:
How high was the highest point above sea level on the land mass at the time of the flood of Noah?
I don’t know. You work it out for us. Show your maths.
ICANT writes:
No one knows how high that point was. Guesses can be made and assertions can be made. But the facts are missing.
Yes, I know. Facts indicating a global flood are missing, completely. That’s why there’s absolutely no evidence for any global flood, at least since the time of the first unicellular organisms. We’ve got empirical evidence for them, you know?
ICANT writes:
God Bless
May the Force be with you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2011 10:58 AM ICANT has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 59 of 404 (638089)
10-19-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
10-14-2011 1:00 PM


Re: Whats expected?
I agree with Coyote's main point, that the scientific evidence conflicts with claims of a recent, worldwide flood. But I also agree with some of the complaints of ICANT about the way that Coyote is presenting this.
From the OP:
But biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago.
Yes, some biblical scholars place a worldwide flood at about this date. But not all. Probably not even the majority. Certainly not the majority of those who know some science.
From message 8:
I have to rely on creationists to interpret the bible. I am only responding to what they claim.
Why accept the (young earth) creationist interpretation of the Bible? Why not the "old-earth creationist" or the "evolutionary creationist" interpretation?
Evidence of the first claim, that of a recent flood:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
2500 BC -- nwcreation.net
2978-3128 BC -- asa3.org
3300 BC -- biblediscoveries.com
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)
If you disagree, these are the folks you should be debating.
Most of the above sources are not scholarly. Morris was neither a biblical scholar nor a scientist; he was a hydraulic engineer. Setterfield is not a biblical scholar; he has only a BA in physics, so far as I know.
The ASA has some very good scholars (both biblical and scientific), but does not take a firm position on how to interpret the flood account. While there is some diversity of opinion in the ASA, very few members and none of the current leadership hold to a recent, worldwide flood.
The claims here can be simplified to just two: 1) the date of the flood is recent, not millions of years ago; and 2) the flood was worldwide.
As a consequence of these claims, there should be evidence in the soils of that flood, and as such these claims can be easily tested by archaeologists, as they deal with that time period all the time.
Archaeologists do not find the evidence in recent soils of a global flood. To me this is a simple but conclusive test.
Yes, I agree. Scientific evidence has falsified the YEC/"Flood Geology" interpretation of the biblical flood account. But note that this does not necessarily falsify the account itself; it only falsifies one particular interpretation of the account. More than 50 years ago biblical scholar Merrill F. Unger called this interpretation "The Nave View", and said that it was "shaky on hermeneutical grounds and absurd on scientific grounds."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2011 1:00 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2011 6:42 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 404 (638099)
10-19-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by kbertsche
10-19-2011 4:33 PM


Re: Whats expected?
Yes, some biblical scholars place a worldwide flood at about this date. But not all. Probably not even the majority. Certainly not the majority of those who know some science.
Well, sure. It divides creationists into two classes. On the one hand, there are the creationists who take biblical chronology literally, and are wrong. On the other hand, there are the creationists who say that you might as well take Genesis 1 as a metaphor ... in which case they can join the rest of the Christians and admit that evolution happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by kbertsche, posted 10-19-2011 4:33 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 10-19-2011 7:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024