Noah's Flood Hypothesis May Not Hold Water

RPI ^ | June 14, 2002 | Jun Abrajano

[VRWC_minion]

But come, these are Clintonian word games to try to rescue the literal truth of that passage

I don't see it that way. I see that there are in fact two circles that can be measured and need to be described in order for complete information to be delivered. One circle clearly refers to the rim and for that we are given the diameter. I for one would never assume the rim to be the same size as the main body. For example, I have a coke can in front of me with a rim that is smaller than the main body and I have a tea cup where the rim is larger.

The author then gives measurements of the body of the vessel.

Seeing that it was designed and built to begin with and seeing that the author is so specific about his measurments and seeing that this text would have probably been corrected by some monk if it was clearly wrong then I submit it is you who is attempting to skew the plain written text to fit your view.

[Physicist]

If you have some actual alternate studies that refute, then by all means provide the names.

No study is necessary; all you need to know is the fact that polonium is a decay product of uranium. That's all there is to it.

[CyberCowboy777]

You refuse to even finish the original conversation. I have presented evidence of the Flood theroy and against the Old earth/MacroEvolution theroy. I make no claims of knowing all. But if the theroy of Old earth/MacroEvolution can be faulted then you need to ask what other alternative exsist.

You have presented nothing, just taken the conversation further and further away.

[spetznaz]

This is hilarious...you claim that i better provide 'infallible' sources to back my claims of the earth being older than 6,000 years old! And then to back up your claims you provide the Bible....which in this particular case requires faith to accept (note the emphasis). And thus you want to combat my facts with your faith....and yet have the temerity to ask me for 'infallible proof.'

What if i asked you for the same...and not from the pages of some tome written ages ago back in some sort of provable means...whether it be a voice from the heavens of scientific proof! I am 100% certain you would answer me with claims of 'i do not have to' or that i am 'a heathen sinner who is not worthy of an answer!' It is interesting that people like you always react in an acerbic manner to anyone who offers a countering statement to your beliefs!

Anyway back to my 'infallible' facts! First of all only megalomaniacs and loonies believe in infallibe absolute stuff(and even though God may be infallible it is humans who 'interpret' his meanings, and humans are defnitely not infallible, and thus may taint any absolute truth through their 'interpretations').

And thus i would like for you to also provide 'infallible' proof...and before you start quoting Biblical verses claiming that since they are the word of God they are infallible (which would be an easy way out for you) it would be nice for you to provide conclusive proof that can be accepted and proven. After all it would be easy for me to bring a book of Fairy tales and claim that since it talks of unicorns and mer-men they exist!

Anyway back to my sources! First of all you can find backing for my assertations from ANY book backed by scientific fact that analyzes geographical history (the various ages of the earth), delves into history and pre-history (the various civilizations and lithic ages), biology (the time span for the current genetic diversity to occur), physics (the cooling stages of the mantle and the condensation of the atmosphere to allow for percolation), chemistry, and a host of many other fields and facets. Basically if you have a child ask him or her for her science book, or maybe go to your local library! You will find my 'sources' there!

However if you are referring to the sources for the post i put on FR they are as follows:

It is from a site http://www.crystalinks.com/narmer.html

Or you could simply do a search on the web for resources on ancient civilizations and also on the age of the earth! Or as i said before go to the library and check on the age of the earth!

Here are some sources on the age of the Earth:

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

There are also other measurement methods apart from the radiological method. These are: The Accumulation of Helium in the Atmosphere; The Decay of the Earth's Magnetic field; The Accumulation of Metals into the Oceans.

[CyberCowboy777]

Yes and the half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

[VRWC_minion]

You could, but then (if you insisted on using different circles to measure circumference and diameter), you'd probably say that the diameter was 9.55 feet and the circumference was 31.4 feet. This is because the inner diameter (what can I fit inside) and the outer circumference (how big is this thing) are far more useful and meaningful measures than the inner circumference and the outer diameter.

The difference between the two diameters are not that significant to convey the amount that the vessel could contain. The idea that the instructions for the original design would have focused on the rim makes sense to me. For example, I call in a contractor and tell him I want a hot tub 10 feet from rim to rim and I want the edge to flair out. This makes far more sense to me.

[JediGirl]

If you don't believe the Bible is the word of God, how would you know God's words?

Ask Mohammad.

[Jeff Gordon]

Haha, Who do you believe, Ryan & Pitman or God?

Given that Bronze Age men penned this particular "word of God", I would tend to believe the 21st Century scientists.

[VRWC_minion]

What those two verses demonstrate is that if you take such an extreme position, you're left having to believe some pretty silly stuff.

Or you might assume you are interpreting it wrong and you need to check yourself.But I can understand that its important for you to believe that the author isn't talking about two separate circles. Even though that is a preferable interpretation given that he describes the rim separately.

[Equality 7-2521]

But if there were some magic means of destroying the excess water without destroying the Earth beneath it, one wonders why God did not simply bring it to bear against the evil men and babies, who were themselves two-thirds water, rather than the more ham-handed technique he used.

Makes me wonder why God didn't just poison the atmosphere with sarin gas and give Noah plans to make gas masks. Or better still, just waive his magic god wand and make all the evil people vanish.

[JediGirl]

Let's not forget that this global flood was a divine act. There is no need to prove that it would be naturally possible. There does not need to be sufficient water present now to cover the earth, for God to cause a global flood. (God can say let the Earth be flooded with buttermilk and the world would be flooded with buttermilk. God could then say milk be gone, and then it would be gone.)

And God could have used allegories. But fundamentalists don't like that one. Many religions have a birth (Creation story in the Christian faith's case) and a rebirth (the flood wipes it out and voila--new world) story. Just following the typical pattern of religious stories.

[Saturnalia]

Yes and the half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

Ok, misunderstanding here.
1. Polonium is being produced CONTINUOUSLY in small amounts by natural decay.
2. In order to record the presence of polonium, the granite must be forming into a crystaline state instantaneously.

One can then conclude that:
A. Polonium decay was recorded by the granite during crystalization.
B. As a supply of polonium is being CONSTANTLY created to supply the decay tracks, no modification of timelines is needed.
C. One other possible point of contention, you specify length of formation as 300 million years where the AGE might be stated as 300 million years.

[Saturnalia]

The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small.
But is not constant. The flux between an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration is dependent on the existing concentrations in both areas.
As helium in produced from radioactive decay (U-238 decay chain, etc.)

[RobRoy]

Ask Mohammad.

I would, but he's dead...

[gdani]

I have presented evidence of the Flood theroy and against the Old earth/MacroEvolution theroy. I make no claims of knowing all. But if the theroy of Old earth/MacroEvolution can be faulted then you need to ask what other alternative exsist

You have presented "evidence" from creationist websites done by scientists who's faith is so fragile that they can't accept the fact the Bible is not inerrant

If you believe that animals talk, that dinosaurs were around in biblical times, that the universe was created in 6 days, that woman came from the rib of man, and that all of mankind came from Adam & Eve that's your problem not mine.

Disputes with scientific theory - and it is all theory - do not make biblical creationism the default alternative.

[CyberCowboy777]

I did not quote bible verses. And I do not claim that I am absolutely right. Nor do I make fun of those who disagree with me.

We do not have in-fallible methods of measurement and all have been proven to be wrong to varying degrees. They also require constant environments or rely of known of today being applied to the past.

The point is that Old Earth/Macroevolution is not proven and there is evidence that may point to the Flood theory.

I did not however claim it scientifically as anything more than a theory which is more than I can say for your crowd.

[Equality 7-2521]

waive his magic god wand

wave, d'oh

[JediGirl]

The point is that Old Earth/Macroevolution is not proven and there is evidence that may point to the Flood theory.

Oh yeah, that scientists-trying-to-make-the-earth-older-than-it-really-is conspiracy. I keeping forgetting...

[CyberCowboy777]

There are also other measurement methods apart from the radiological method. These are: The Accumulation of Helium in the Atmosphere; The Decay of the Earth's Magnetic field; The Accumulation of Metals into the Oceans.

Yes there are. And all have opposing views with Scientific evidence. I think I covered The Accumulation of Helium in the Atmosphere; The Decay of the Earth's Magnetic field; The Accumulation of Mud into the Oceans.

[CyberCowboy777]

It is simply two opposing views, with data. That is how we learn. I never claimed a conspiracy.

And you need not make fun of others or be condescending. It belittles your comments and makes you look small and closed minded.