Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2019 5:49 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, frako (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,885 Year: 6,921/19,786 Month: 1,462/1,581 Week: 284/393 Day: 8/99 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Repzion
Member (Idle past 3556 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 189 of 372 (419990)
09-05-2007 9:01 PM


I'm backs. =)

quote:
54. Non-viable size of genetic population – A parent population of one or even seven pairs of animals is not genetically viable. Such inbreeding quickly causes fatal mutations.

You destroyed the African Eve theory, the theory of evolution and the theory that all life came from one cell with one statement! If a parent population of one or even seven pairs of animals would quickly causes fatal mutations how do evolutionists explain all the animals that are alive on earth today without invoking divine intervention????? I implore anyone who is debating against the validity of a global flood: don't make this assertion or be prepared to explain it in light of abiogenesis and evolution.

quote:
1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

Hills and rock formations would have settled and been compacted during the flood to some degree due to the pressure of being under water. When mountains and other geological structures were raised up some rock formations were tilted and as waves of water went over them some earth would have been eroded and more earth from other sources would have been deposited by more wave action. In the case of the Grand Canyon the flood may have not caused the Canyon itself although there are fossils of sea creatures there. Some people believe it was from an ancient lake when a dam burst but I haven’t looked into it. On creationwiki.org there is a response to an article about the Grand Canyon on talk origins which mentions angular unconformities

http://creationwiki.org/Grand_Canyon_was_carved_by_retreating_Flood_waters

There's also a topic on the evc board about angular unconformities that I read.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=190&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=190&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=190&m=1

On post 6 the poster says

quote:
"You can expand angular unconformities to ANY kind of cross cutting relationship and get a problem for both a flood model and a young earth.
My favorite happens to be rock strain especially with fossils. If I was at home I could look up some pictures. I remember seeing some where a fossil as BENT with the curve of the rock that was horizontally compressed.”

Fossils are not a problem for the flood model. How were these creatures fossilized if the sediments were laid down over millions of years? He also mentions brachiopods which are marine creatures. I wonder how many angular conformities contain limestone. I found something here but can't copy and paste it.

http://www.geol.uniovi.es/TDG/Volumen21/TG21-30.PDF
(Search angular conformity and see page 14 – Comparison with the Revilla Nappe)

quote:
2. Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column is vastly older than any postulated flood.

The poster uses the phrase "intentionally misapplied" because when rocks that are known to be young have been dated with the potassium argon method they give dates that are way off. It cannot be observed that the dates given for rocks are close to the actual ages.

I don't trust the results of radiometric dating. Carbon Dating results depends on factors like a constant rate of decay and no changes in the atmosphere that would affect the C14/C12 ratios. See The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods

There is a good summary of the problem in a paper called Radiocarbon: Ages in Error from the Anthropological Journal of Canada Limitations and Usefulness of Rio Carbon Dating (see Problems With Radiocarbon Dating)

In the late 1990's samples of volcanic rock from New Zealand were sent to laboratories to be dated using the potassium-argon method. The oldest sample was about fifty years old and the rocks were dated from hundreds of thousands of years old to more than two million years old. Samples from a lave dome on Mt. St. Helen were dated between .35-2.8 million years using the potassium-argon method. Hualalai basalt from Hawaii known to have been formed from 1800-1801 was dated at about 1.6 million years old. There are other examples like basalt from Mt. Etna that was formed in 1792 and dated at 350,000 years old. Then there's KNM-ER 1470, a modern looking skull found by Richard Leakey in 1972. It was originally dated at 2.9 million years and eventually at 1.9 million years.

On talk origins they try to explain the dinosaur that Mary Schweitzer found by interviewing her colleague who said "No cells have been found in any dinosaurs, but the remnants of red blood cells have been hypothesized on the basis of heme, a kind of iron produced biologically."

Besides iron heme contains oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon. I would like for scientists to carbon date the heme and soft tissue in that fossilized dinosaur. There is a lot to research to do hear and I would look for rocks that have been dated using different methods giving dates that are far apart. There are as many links as you would probably ever want on radiometric dating at. Take a look =)Thttp://nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html

quote:
3. Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.

Fossils are a result of rapid burial and removal from oxygen. The record indicates mass extinction which evolutionary scientists try to attribute to several extinction events. One wouldn’t expect flowering plants in the Cambrian since these were sea creatures unless they were forced into an area where they were buried together. Two things to be considered are ecological and biogeographic zonation. Secondly, if many transitional fossils have been lost due to erosion over hundreds of millions of years and more creatures have been fossilized due to catastrophic conditions I'm surprised that there haven't been more fossils of creatures from a later era discovered with those of an earlier era.

quote:
7. Ice sheets – Ice caps can't reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.

We don't believe there was more than one ice age besides the "little ice age" or a similar event. The oxygen isotopes ratios depend on there being consistent annual layers – uniformitarianism.

The difference between the old flow model and the young earth model is the former assumes the ice sheets have been forming at a consistent rate for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Again this depends on the uniformitarian position and the assumption the ice sheet has been in equilibrium for a very long period of time. Heres an article about rapid changes in oxygen isotope content of ice cores on icr.org.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r02/

quote:
9. Ocean core data – Ocean cores would show unsorted piles of terrestrial life and different distributions in grain sizes than observed. They would also show little difference in thickness between the mid Atlantic ridge and near subduction zones, which is not what is observed

I haven't researched this a lot, but the answer may be the same as the one above. Here are two quotes from "Geology", the first about deep sea cores:

"Warming causes expansion of the seawater (sea-level rise); cooling results in contraction (sea- level fall). It has been estimated from oxygen isotope evidence in deep-sea cores that worldwide sea level has been 430-450 feet lower than today several times during the last 2-3 million years of earth history."
(Geology Vol. 2, p. 390 edited by James A. Woodhead, Salem Press 1999)

"The actual mechanism in the ocean basins is related to heat flow from the earth's interior at the mid-ocean ridges. As the ridges become more volcanically active, an increase in heat flow occurs; the high heat flow causes an increase in the elevation of the mid-ocean ridge. This increase in elevation causes a decrease in the volume of ocean basins, resulting in a transgression. As the volcanic activity decreases, heat flow decreases, and the elevation of the mid-ocean ridge drops so that volume of the ocean basins is increased. This results in a regression. Sea-level changes brought about by this process produce large-scale fluctuations resulting in the flooding of not only the continental shelves and the coastal plains but also the interiors of the continents. Much of the geologic record contains rocks deposited in seas in continental interiors. This process may result in transgressions where ancient sea-level could be as much as 300 meters above present sea level."
(Geology Vol. 2, p. 649 edited by James A. Woodhead, Salem Press 1999)

Do you see the problem here?

quote:
10. Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth's magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.

The question depends on the magnetic field having reverse polarity. This is something I haven’t researched but from my point of view it’s probably just another way of evolutionists trying to explain away an argument for a young earth. Given the lies they told me in school about evolution and knowing that it is a belief system – a philosophy - that many cling to, I have doubts about the magnetic field's reverse polarity. Plate tectonics does not invalidate a global flood, it’s a question of whether or not the continents have been drifting for millions of years or were separated and spread out over a much shorter time period.

quote:
31. Compression of all fossil life into too short a time period – If all species represented by fossils, coal, and petroleum from throughout the geologic record lived simultaneously, they would have been standing on each other, an ecological impossibility.

SEriously...You’ve got to be kidding me! I’ve seen this type of statement before but haven’t seen the data to back it up. I’m sure there are studies which lend credence to the idea but taphonomy and pressure are necessary for the fossilization and coal and you can’t get carbon 14 out of 290 million year old coal.

quote:
39. Caverns – Caverns carved from dolomite such as exist in West Texas can’t form in as little as 4500 years

Lets see some proof. Prove it. The poster ignores the dolomite problem.

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/feb/thedolomiteprobl700

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1999/04.1999.01Arvidson.pdf

I saw a quote in the 2 volume set "Geology" that said something like decaying vegetable matter in ground water produces carbonic acid. Carbonic acid reacts with calcite in dolomite rocks which causes the dissolution of dolomite forming caves. I’ve read of underwater caves that were formed quickly in the Mediterranean and in Northeastern U.S. (maybe New York).

Along these lines is a good article at creationwiki.org

http://creationwiki.org/Stalactites_and_Stalagmites

quote:
46. Delicate structures preserved in supposed turbulence – Delicate structures such as insect wings and feathers are preserved in rock. How could a turbulence that supposedly weathers miles of consolidated rock simultaneously preserve delicate structures?

Because they were buried rapidly and removed from oxygen and protected from water. How could structures such as insect wings and feathers be preserved over hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years when they have to be buried quickly and removed from oxygen??? Delicate structures such as insect wings and feather would not be preserved if they weren’t trapped and the poster again misuses the phrase simultaneously.

47. Coprolites – Coprolites, which are fossilized turds, are preserved throughout the fossil record. How does a flood have animals constantly crapping in the midst of a flood after they are exterminated?[/quote]

This is one of the worst arguments I've seen. Animals defecate every day and in a catastrophe some would lose control of their bodily functions. Let the poster explain how the feces was fossilized over millions of years of sedimentary deposits and why this process doesn’t occur today.

quote:
52. Lack of any geologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah's Flood, I know of no single piece of geologic evidence in favor of Noah's Flood.

The process of fossilization, mass burial graveyards, fossils in sedimentary layers, the Burgess Shale, Joggins cliffs, dinosaurs with translucent blood vessels and soft tissue, carbon 14 in coal, the problem with the advancing seas theory, trilobite fossils in Canada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Arkansas, a fish fossilized giving birth, a fossil of a perch swallowing a herring, Whale fossils found miles inland and fossilized nautiloids in the Grand Canyon.

quote:
55. Food requirements of animals – Some animals such as Koalas require very specific diets. How could these dietary requirements been provided, and who could keep up with such variable requirements on a ship?

Koalas may be descended from a species on the ark. Genesis 6:19-20 says "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.” This is seen as a general command and the more specific command is found in Genesis 7:2 which says seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female…” Leviticus 11:27 says Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you..” Since Koalas walk on all fours and have paws they almost certainly descended from one of two pairs of animals on the ark.

If Koalas evolved it would have been quite fortunate for them that they were in a region full of eucalyptus trees when they developed the ability to detect the toxicity levels of phenolic and terpene compounds in the leaves and also have the ability to remove the toxic components from their bodies.

quote:
56. Mobility considerations – How did sloths or other slow-moving animals get to any ark and how did they migrate from any ark without a trace in the time allotted?

They walked. Any traces of animal migration would not be there because it was almost 5,000 years ago. I never understand this argument either and when it’s asked no information is given.

quote:
57. Symbiotic relationships – Several species have a sole source of nutrition. How did these creatures exist during or after a global flood?

The question ignores what creationists teach; that many animals today descended from those on the ark nor does the poster attempt to explain what the animals were, what their sole source of food is, how they happened to evolved in the right location where that food was or what their food source was before they evolved to what they are now.

quote:
58. Parasites – Parasites require hosts in order to survive. Were all creatures on any ark hosts and how did they survive such parasitism?

There probably weren't any creatures that were hosting parasites or the parasites were dormant. I haven’t thought about this much but suspect that there are zoos which have gone years at a time without any problems with parasites.

quote:
59. Diseases – Diseases that exist today require hosts to survive. How did all the infected animals survive simultaneously being hosts to every disease currently around?

Again he presupposes that these animals were infected and had diseases. If an omniscient and omnipotent Creation can draw thousands of creatures to a certain location He can surely protect them from diseases.

quote:
61. Short-lived life forms – Mayflies only live a few days. How could they reproduce in a barge in a non-riparian environment?

Again the assumption is that they existed at the time and are not a result of post flood speciation or could be preserved in certain conditions under the earth during a flood. I’m pretty sure there are mosquitoes that have survived flood waters and violent rain stroms though I don’t know how.

quote:
62. Life forms older than flood – The oldest bristlecone pines are 5700 years old, they can’t survive underwater for any appreciable amount of time.

According to Wikipedia an ancient bristle Pine in the White Mountains of California is 4,700 years old and is the oldest living organism. Interestingly they give the date when Gilgamesh lived as 4,700 years ago but others give him a later date.

quote:
63. Vegetation – Neither most vegetation nor their seeds can survive under salt water. Nor can such vegetation root and thrive in salt encrusted 'soil' (which also largely didn’t exist immediately after any flood).

Evolutionists try to dispute the story of the flood and claim that the salinity levels haven’t changed drastically. If this is the case then they are left to explain the advancing seas which deposited many marine fossils and layers of limestone all over the world.

quote:
69. Coccolithophores – How could these creatures that bloom, oversaturate their environment and then die off have created so many and such thick deposits in the geologic record in so little time during a turbulent flood? (credit to Lithodid-Man)

Because they were buried quickly under other sediment and compacted forming limestone. Coquina is a form of limestone that contains fossilized shells and marble is formed from the metamorphism of limestone. Limestone comes from coccolithophores which would normally decay and it took great pressure to turn them into rock.

quote:
74. Lack of any biologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah's Flood, I know of no single piece of biologic evidence in favor of Noah's Flood.

If the biological evidence depends on mitochondrial DNA and the PCR technique it's been shown to be suspect.

quote:
76. Amount of space – The amount of space provided by the Ark would not come near to enough to hold all species, genus, or even families observed today.

Your correct however, but no one is claiming that all the species observed today existed at that time or that none of those that existed then are now extinct.

I'll post more. That's just some stuff to work on for now

Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 9:42 PM Repzion has responded
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 11:08 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 192 by ringo, posted 09-05-2007 11:52 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Vacate, posted 09-06-2007 12:09 AM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 194 by iceage, posted 09-06-2007 12:34 AM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 09-06-2007 1:20 AM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Repzion
Member (Idle past 3556 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 196 of 372 (420434)
09-07-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by RAZD
09-05-2007 9:42 PM


quote:
Nope, because the "common ancestor" concept does not mean there was a single individual, rather that there was a population of breeding organisms that shared the same basic genetics. It is more proper to refer to "common ancestor populations" to avoid this problem.

And single cell life does not breed with others, but divides, so it is not restricted by inbreeding problems


Nope, because the "common ancestor" concept does not mean there was a single individual, rather that there was a population of breeding organisms that shared the same basic genetics. It is more proper to refer to "common ancestor populations" to avoid this problem.

And single cell life does not breed with others, but divides, so it is not restricted by inbreeding problems.

Now responding to Anglagards post.

quote:
80. Leakage – A wooden ship of this size would flex due to stress to such a degree that no tar type sealant would work to prevent leakage and eventual sinking within a few days.

In 2003 nine members of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering published a paper called Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway. Their conclusion was that the ark could have navigated seas with waves higher than 30 meters. As for the statement "no tar type sealant would work to prevent leakage and eventual sinking within a few days" I doubt that is true. People have used things found in nature for building and manufacturing long before the industrial revolution and people still use natural today in different medicines. http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/safety_aig/safety_aig.htm

quote:
89. Sargon and the Akkadian Empire – How could Sargon conquer Sumeria and create the Akkadian Empire either underwater or immediately after a global flood with no troops?

He didn't - this was after the flood. According to wikipedia Sargon of Akkadia ruled from 2333 -2279 B.C. Genesis 10:10-12 says the first centers of Nimrod's kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar and from there he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen. There are different theories to identify Nimrod in other civilizations and was Sargon. One theory is that Nimrod was the inspiration for the Gilgamesh written centuries after the flood. The author makes an interesting argument although I question his translation of Genesis 10:9
http://www.ancientdays.net/nimrod.htm

That's all I have for now, I'll get back to your posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 9:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by anglagard, posted 09-07-2007 9:06 PM Repzion has responded

  
Repzion
Member (Idle past 3556 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 198 of 372 (420610)
09-08-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by anglagard
09-07-2007 9:06 PM


Re: So When Was this Flood?
quote:
Here is what else Wikipedia says: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

That doesn't address my response to the original question which was “How could Sargon conquer Sumeria and create the Akkadian Empire either underwater or immediately after a global flood with no troops?” There’s no mention of Sargon on that page but I will address a couple of things on that page:

"Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)?"

Many biblical scholars believe Genesis 6:19-20 was a general command and Genesis 7:2-3 was a more specific command.

There's a link on that page to an article on wikipedia about the documentary hypothesis:

"The documentary hypothesis (DH) proposes that the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, known collectively as the Torah or Pentateuch), represent a combination of documents from four originally independent sources."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

This hypothesis was formed by a scholar by Julius Wellhausen in the late nineteenth century. He believed that the narrative for the flood came from four sources including manuscripts he called the Jahwist text and the Priestly source and were written about 920 B.C. and 720 B.C. respectively. This was long before the Israelites were taken captive to Babylon so Wellhausen must not have believed that the Jews took the story from the Babylonians.

It says on that page “The hypothesis became the consensus view on the origin of Pentateuch for much of the 20th century, but its assumptions, methodology and conclusions have been seriously questioned in recent decades and it no longer dominates the field. Nevertheless, no new paradigm has replaced it, and scholars continue to draw on its terminology and insights even as they explore alternative models.”

There are some interesting comments about higher criticism by Melvin Kyle, Egyptologist and Professor of Biblical Archaeology at Xenia Theological Seminary.

http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter17/kyle.php
(See Harmony With Scripture)

Another interesting article on the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch and the documentary hypothesis is at
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/13

There is no concrete evidence that the Q document ever existed or that Wellhausen's hypothesis is correct. Yet, some people claim that Jesus never lived even though there are about 5,400 manuscripts, papyri and fragments of the New Testament and it has better support than other ancient documents.

One of the arguments against the historicity of the flood is that it was taken from the Sumerian account by way of the Babylonians. The Babylonian account is similar to that in Genesis because the kings are recorded as having lived to very long lives. If the Hebrews took the flood story from the Babylonians they would have had to insert several chapters into Genesis without objection from any scribe or Rabbi and those who read from the Torah on the Sabbath would have been fully aware of the addition. But, there’s no record of either until the school of nineteenth century “higher criticism.” Also, they would have kept a record of the kings who reigned in Edom (1 Chro. 1:43-54, Gen. 36:41-43) and a record of the descendants of Esau (Gen 36:1-29) but not kept a record of their own ancestors and those who descended from them. Yet the table of Nations is clearly spelled out in Genesis 11 and Josephus describes the migration and descendants of Noah’s sons in Antiquities of the Jews, 1:6:1
http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=1&chapter=6.

There is a conflict between the masoretic text and the Septuagint in Genesis 11:13. In the Hebrew text Gen 11:12-13 says after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. In the Septuagint it says when Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Cainan. 13 And after he became the father of Cainan, Arphaxad lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters, and then he died. When Cainan had lived 130 years, he became the father of Shelah. And after he became the father of Shelah, Cainan lived 330 years and had other sons and daughters. (From biblegateway.com, footnote for Gen. 11:13)

In the Hebrew text Genesis 10:24 also leaves out Cainan but he is included in the Septuagint and in the genealogy of Jesus as recorded by Luke (Luke 3:36). The Septuagint was translated in the third century B.C. and it is more likely that a deletion like this would have occurred over a period of more than 2,200 years than less than 300 years if it did occur before the Jews left Babylon.

If the Hebrews took the flood story from the Babylonians it raises some other questions. Numbers 13:33 says “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them" (NIV). Genesis 6:4 says “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown” (NIV).

If the Israelites added the flood story and were able to edit it as they pleased it makes no sense to mention the Nephilim in Genesis 6 and allow it to be understood that a race of people somehow survived the flood. The term Nephilim probably refers to giant people and the term applied to people who lived both before and after the flood.

Psalms was written about 1,000 B.C., almost five hundred years before the Israelites returned from Babylon. Psalm 104:5-9 says “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth (NIV).

If the Israelites added the flood story to Genesis why did they state that the water covered all the high mountains or hills when Psalm 104:9 says never again will the water cover the earth?

quote:
Let's do some math. Let's see, Book of Jubilees places the flood at 2309 BC, which is between 2333 and 2279 BC, which places Sargon underwater. Ussher places the flood at 2349 BC, which is 16 years from Sargon's rule which started in 2333 BC according to your own source.

I haven’t read Usshers Annals of the World. It was written in the mid seventeenth century, there have been many archeological discoveries since that time and it’s possible that Ussher was wrong. The book of Jubilees was written in the late second century B.C. and it is also possible that the date they give for the flood is wrong. The poster made no attempt to prove that any of his dates were accurate but he used them because they fit the conclusion he wants. Trying to fix a chronology for ancient cultures is not an easy task and historians often disagree. This is true of Egyptian Chronology and the Chronology of the ancient Near East.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_chronology

It says this about Ussher’s chronology on wikipedia:

“Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8); This view had been almost completely abandoned by 1997, six thousand years after 4004 BC.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Only at first glace does 2 Peter 3:8 support the idea that from the time of creation to Jesus’ birth is exactly four thousand years and one must consider context, that is, read the next verse as well. Also, other verses should be considered such as Acts 1:6-7. If we knew the exact date of creation and could infer from 2 Peter 3:8 that Jesus would return six thousand years later we could know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

Using Sargon to try and disprove the flood is not good argumentation. Sargon was a Sumerian king and the Sumerians recorded the flood in cuneiform tablets. The Sumerians recorded four kings in the first Dynasty of Kish as living more than one thousand years and several others as living three hundred years or more. In the First Dynasty of Uruk one king lived to be 420 and another lived 1,200 years.
Besides that, the Egyptian chronology, which has been revised more than twenty times and is often justly criticized, is probably the standard used by historians to arrive at the dates for which the Sumerian kings lived.

quote:
Without this exact date, not only is further discussion of this exact point futile....

yet you are either ignorant of the problem with Egyptian chronology or choose to ignore it. No offense. You can choose. =)

Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.

Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by anglagard, posted 09-07-2007 9:06 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Coragyps, posted 09-08-2007 7:42 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 200 by anglagard, posted 09-08-2007 10:39 PM Repzion has responded

  
Repzion
Member (Idle past 3556 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 203 of 372 (421049)
09-10-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by anglagard
09-08-2007 10:39 PM


Re: So When Was this Flood?
Anglagard I cannot give you a exact date of when this flood happended. You requires dates, but if bible scholars and historians can't give an exact date this does not disprove this so called " mythical flood." The Bible stops giving the ages of the Father's when they had children after Jacob and we don't know how long it was between creation and the fall of man. All I really can supply you with is this quote from a historian and link.

"Some experiments have even suggested that many periods of time could have been characterized by the growth of one extra ring every one to four years, with evidence in controlled laboratory situations showing extra ring growth tied to short drought periods."
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381

As for the water issue, I'll try responding soon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by anglagard, posted 09-08-2007 10:39 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2007 10:33 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2007 9:34 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 206 by anglagard, posted 09-11-2007 10:06 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Repzion
Member (Idle past 3556 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 269 of 372 (510198)
05-28-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by molbiogirl
07-20-2007 11:02 AM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
It's been over two years since I last visted here :o

quote:
I get the distinct feeling a fifteen year old who has thus far spouted AIG verbatim wont respond to this list. Offer some evidence in rebuttal.

I did what you asked Molbiogirl, I responded to anglagard. Hopefully you read my posts.

Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by molbiogirl, posted 07-20-2007 11:02 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by roxrkool, posted 05-28-2009 7:06 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 271 by anglagard, posted 05-29-2009 3:29 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019