Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-17-2014, 02:37 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,898,764 times
Reputation: 1009

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I am afraid it is you who is making things up - as you go along, proposing that Noah lived in the area where he just happened after a year floating on a global flood, to end up. Simply in order to get over a problem. But read below..these are not the only examples. I suppose you wil argue that the Eden civilization was in Armenia and drogue - stones prove that Arks were quite common. But still not found. Not this one, for sure.

In 1996 Fasold co-wrote a paper with geologist Lorence Collins titled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure" which concluded that the boat-shaped formation was a natural stone formation that merely resembled a boat. The same paper pointed out that the "anchors" were local volcanic stone.[15] The abstract reads:

A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.
....

A geological investigation of samples from the stones, published by geologist Lorence Collins in co-authorship with their original discoverer David Fasold, found that they are of local rock and thus could not have been brought from Mesopotamia, the Ark's supposed place of origin.[15] Similar stones found throughout ancient Armenia are recognised as pagan "holy stones" converted to Christian use by the addition of crosses and other Christian symbols. Many are found in Christian cemeteries...
Wiki, but we can track down the originals...if you want.
I already dealt with Fasold. Why keep brinking him up when I already debunked him?

The ark found:



Last edited by Eusebius; 02-17-2014 at 02:48 PM..

 
Old 02-17-2014, 02:38 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,898,764 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
The 'sea creatures at high levels' is because the strata has been raised up. In many cases the fossils are of the sea floor, still with shells in situ and worm burrows. It is evidence against the flood scenario.
The large amounts of sea creatures are evidence of millions of years that are needed to produce so many fossils. That there are only sea creatures is evidence of oceans, not a flood drowning everything from Pelycosaurs to polar bears.
Continental strata is what we would expect in million - year old sea and then land deposits. If there was a Flood one would expect one flood level - and that all over the world and pretty much nothing else.
Sediment transported long distances sounds more like ancient sea beds (today, they show ripples) which form strata. That some of these are raised up shows that we have million -year old strata -movement and does not indicate a flood.
I cannot understand the 'erosion' evidence, erosion proves a flood, no erosion proves a flood. The Rockies are a relatively new mountain range, but they are mixed in with a much earlier and highly eroded mountain range. This indicates deep time geological processes, not a Flood.
The folded strata ought not to be there at all if there was a flood. Both because there would be one layer with all creation mixed in it and because it would remain where it was. At best tilted when the mountains rose (or rose a bit higher, as in your theory) but this rolling over and inverting and in many cases breaking and sliding one over another shows that these are hard layers and the apparent plasticity comes from a slow process over millions of years - not something that happened in a month or two at the end of the flood.

I'd say these evidences are more proof of no Flood than a flood, just as with the grand canyon, varves, Ice cores, ancient trees of 'pre -flood' date, radiation - dating of rocks, stratification of species looking very much like evolution over time, not sound evidence of all creation jumbled in together - (just a similarity between Ammonites and Nautilus) and -oh yes. Polystrates. Really better explained by trees buries in successive layers of strata over a long time - not in one go.
Not really. The sea creatures at high levels over all mountains all over the earth is proof of a global flood in Noah's day. The videos by Snelling provided by me proves this.
 
Old 02-17-2014, 02:40 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,898,764 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
supplementary....Objections to a Total Noachian Flood.
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Also - This person claims some expertise. Whether or no, they are arguments I have read before, so the science supports .

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?

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.

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.

4. Varves – How does one create 20 million annual layers, each layer which would have taken at least a month to settle due to hydrodynamics as is observed in the Green River Formation? How does one explain seasonal of pollen grains found in the layers?

5. Sedimentation rates – Why would there be Precambrian rocks below ones feet in the Canadian Shield area, yet the entire geologic column in the Williston Basin in North Dakota? Why would a global flood scour down to the Precambrian in one place yet at the same time deposit tens of thousands of feet of sediment in another when it is exactly the same process? Giant post-pyramid ice ages are not an explanation as there is no written record or other evidence of increased historical glaciation to the extent needed to scour the Canadian Shield down in the last 4500 years, not to mention such Precambrian rocks elsewhere on Earth like South Africa.

6. Lava layers with ancient soils between flows – How could lava forms which only exist with a land surface interface create interbedded deposits with paleosoils?

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

8. Ice core data with correlated known volcanic events – Ice cores can be dated back by multiple methods nearly a million years, yet show no evidence of a global flood.

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.

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.

11. Volcanism – According to ‘flood geology’ every igneous rock layer that overlays sedimentary rock would have to be less than 4500 years old. Yet, historical records indicate this tremendous amount of simultaneous volcanic activity could not have occurred in recent times because someone would have noticed, becoming extinct and all when the atmosphere becomes unbreathable. Such a position directly contradicts the existence of the Deccan Traps which are up to 2 km thick and 500,000 square km in extent, yet supposedly erupted in India despite any historic evidence, after such a flood.

12. Ore deposit formation rates – Most ore deposits require a longer period of time to separate their constituent elements and then cool to create an economically viable source of minerals.

13. Evaporites – The existence of evaporate deposits thousands of feet thick are incompatible with any global flood as they are formed through evaporation rather than through the addition of fresh water.

14. Carbonates – The huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to being locked into carbonate rock would have made the planet resemble Venus. There would have been no life to drown.

15. Microfossil deposits - Thick deposits of microfossils in limestone, diatomaceous chert, and chalk that could not settle to such a degree of thickness in the time allotted for any global flood.

16. Thick deposits of sand - Sand is the result of weathering and working of formally solid formations, requiring long long times to form and accumulate.

17. Aeolian sand deposits – Wind deposited sandstone is found above and below water deposited limestone. One example is the Cococino formation which is both overlain and overlies limestone.

18. Overthrust formations – the time and pressure required to cause overthrust formations is far greater than can occur in any post-flood historic time.

19. Formation of geologic features such as mountains and valleys – How did something like the Himalaya Mountains form without anyone noticing all those earthquakes? How were valleys cut between such mountains in less than 4500 years?

EvC Forum: 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah?s Flood
Why would the ice cores prove a world-wide flood when the ice came after the flood in Noah's day?
 
Old 02-17-2014, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,045,735 times
Reputation: 14068
Probably time for those with common sense to bow out of the thread and allow Eusebius his little fantasy. It's painfully apparent he can't let go of it.
 
Old 02-17-2014, 02:51 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,898,764 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Probably time for those with common sense to bow out of the thread and allow Eusebius his little fantasy. It's painfully apparent he can't let go of it.
Next.
 
Old 02-17-2014, 03:04 PM
 
63,470 posts, read 39,739,901 times
Reputation: 7793
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Probably time for those with common sense to bow out of the thread and allow Eusebius his little fantasy. It's painfully apparent he can't let go of it.
I DO miss rifleman at these times, Trout!! He was tenacious, concise, cogent . . . and humorous in the bargain. (I hope he is enjoying his new-found theism . . . he, he)
 
Old 02-17-2014, 09:39 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,528,855 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Why would the ice cores prove a world-wide flood when the ice came after the flood in Noah's day?
Because they work, rather like strata, and show that the ice was laying all through the time the Flood was supposed to be happening and even before the Eden - creation is supposed to have happened (50, 000 years ago according to current revised Creationist dating) the oldest date ice core goes back to over a million years.

You will of course deny this. But you would the be in the familiar position of not having evidence that supports a Flood (the capital F distinguishes the Noachian total flood from mere geologically confirmed global floods) or even creation, but having to explain away or dismiss evidence against it.

The reason why the shells on mountain tops actually argue against a Flood and why that Boat shape is merely Rock has been explained. You are into Blinkered denial.

P.s Genesis - literalist articles (as in AiG) do argue that the Ark was box shape (they do not buy your 'narrows' translation) but add on some boat -shaped features out of nowhere on the grounds that Noah would have known that he needed them. But, even if we allow that, it is still far short of the very distinctive boat -shape of that Rock outcrop which is the only reason (being on Ararat, I can understand the excitement) it attracted interest int he first place.

It is rock and it is the wrong shape. Your 'narrows' translation I cannot find anywhere but in your post.
 
Old 02-17-2014, 09:55 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,528,855 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
I already dealt with Fasold. Why keep brinking him up when I already debunked him?

...
Where. I couldn't see it. Which post? I can't see anything you've debunked. You have either come up with some additional epicyclic theory such as the one to explain why the drogue stones ended up in the place the stone came from. But not why they are not the only ones, so far as I can see, or simply relied on restatement of debunked claims.
 
Old 02-17-2014, 11:39 PM
 
1,220 posts, read 982,753 times
Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Because they work, rather like strata, and show that the ice was laying all through the time the Flood was supposed to be happening and even before the Eden - creation is supposed to have happened (50, 000 years ago according to current revised Creationist dating) the oldest date ice core goes back to over a million years.

You will of course deny this. But you would the be in the familiar position of not having evidence that supports a Flood (the capital F distinguishes the Noachian total flood from mere geologically confirmed global floods) or even creation, but having to explain away or dismiss evidence against it.

The reason why the shells on mountain tops actually argue against a Flood and why that Boat shape is merely Rock has been explained. You are into Blinkered denial.

P.s Genesis - literalist articles (as in AiG) do argue that the Ark was box shape (they do not buy your 'narrows' translation) but add on some boat -shaped features out of nowhere on the grounds that Noah would have known that he needed them. But, even if we allow that, it is still far short of the very distinctive boat -shape of that Rock outcrop which is the only reason (being on Ararat, I can understand the excitement) it attracted interest int he first place.

It is rock and it is the wrong shape. Your 'narrows' translation I cannot find anywhere but in your post.
...the oldest date ice core goes back to over a million years? Based on a uniformitarian paradigm...sure. This assumes that one layer in an ice core sample represents 1 year. This is of course delusional thinking, because 1 layer in an ice core sample represents 1 storm, not 1 year.
 
Old 02-18-2014, 03:27 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,528,855 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlewitness View Post
...the oldest date ice core goes back to over a million years? Based on a uniformitarian paradigm...sure. This assumes that one layer in an ice core sample represents 1 year. This is of course delusional thinking, because 1 layer in an ice core sample represents 1 storm, not 1 year.
The rejection of uniformity on no basis other than to explain why the earth is not millions of years old is not justified. Radiation, tree rings - everything has to inexplicably and pointlessly speed up in order to cram the evidence of millions of years into a few thousands.

However, I suppose I shall have to look at ice cores to see just how they work out the chronology......

I read that the layers representing changes in temperature (taken as seasonal) are not the only dating method. There is also the isotope -decay data which exist in the cores. I gather that this is not terribly accurate, but it does at least give a general date - check against which to match the layers, and the chronology works out at looking like seasonal layers, not as many storms per year as you need to reduce a million year old ice layer to one laid down over a few thousand years.

It would be stretching coincidence father too far to claim that the uniform isotope decay speeded up just just enough to make it seem that a myriad of storms per year were actually seasonal. Unless you want to claim divine intervention, rather like fiddling fossil strata to look like it proved evolutionary development, (1)
Of course, I am no expert in Ice cores, so I may have got something wrong. As always, I am willing to be educated, if convincing data is put before me.

Which brings me to this post, which I was thinking about last night.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Probably time for those with common sense to bow out of the thread and allow Eusebius his little fantasy. It's painfully apparent he can't let go of it.
It ain't all about him. Eusebius is a challenging vehicle who makes us address points that otherwise we wouldn't. And I see something remarkable happening. the more rational and science -based view is being..shared, really, is how I see it.

There is no reason for we goddless hellspawn to be here at all, on a thread where bible -doctrine is discussed, any more than we would parachute into the Sci Fi thread reminding affictionados that Warp drive engines haven't actually been invented and taking university degrees in Klingon is of no practical value, except that claims are made that certain stuff in the bible is literally true, sometimes with a sideswipe at atheists, rationalists, darwinists and scientists.

The arguments can look very good too - if you don't have the counters. Putting those - as Nye did in the recent debate - can make this good -looking case collapse like a house of cards and we (which includes also our more reasonable christians, here) look on with a sort of bemusement while the creationists (2) maintain a theory that has already fallen flat.

Thus, Eusebius is a valuable tool in countering Creationism and the literalist view of Genesis, because if he can't make it look feasible (and he doesn't - he merely keeps his own faith alive by denial of fact, really) then nobody can.

This is worth the effort.


(1)Yep gotta be a foopnote just to fool as many people people as possible into doubting the literal claims of genesis -as endorsed by His son - doubt genesis and you doubt Jesus. Gotta find some way of stoking the boilers of hell...why, of course it is S*tan, getting us all into another fine mess, fiddling the fossil records and radiomentric dating and changing the petrified wooden walls of the ark into natural rock, just so those who put trust in Facts rather than pure Blind Faith would not achieve that purity of faith required to bob about in heaven like a load of helium - balloons with big smiles painted on. Oblivious to their fellows all broiling on the coals.

No wonder God allowed him to do it.

(2) as was wisely pointed out, in a post I noted, recently, not the same thing as one who believes that creator was behind what actually happens, but one who believes that it happened as literally described in the Bible and not as per the evidence.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-18-2014 at 04:20 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top