Scientific evidence for Noah's flood

[Guest aworldofmanyfools]

Yo, I am 61, I am a really bitter old fart.

no kidding?

Your knowledge of science seems to be limited to AiG etc.

no, it's been repeated to you numerous times, brick head, but it never sinks in...your big educational credentials are nothing to boast about, I'm an engineer who has coursework in all the major disciplines

Too bad, you seem to have wasted 40 years.

coming from someone who wasted their entire life, is now a bitter old windbag, and can only be humbled right into the dirt? RICH!

AiG is not science.

AIG practices origins science using the scripture as the foundation, your heroes practice it using naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions, but, in the end, they die and are proven to be fools

it's all good, you lose!

[Lcash]

Here is a better article of reconciling Genesis with modern science. The idea that the flood was the re-filling of the Mediteranean is not mine. It was from a geophysicist name Glenn Morton. Here is a link to a paper he wrote on the subject.

The Word of God doesn't need to be "reconciled" with any whimsical human speculation

no one can say exactly what processes may have occurred at the Creation, it's completely outside the realm of human knowledge/reference, and the little PhD geologists don't have the slightest clue

Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. We know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.

For example, the existence of short half-life polonium halos in rock have been used by many to argue for rapid formation (i.e., creation) of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two 'mutually-exclusive' facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. We know of many ways in which the materials can be made mobile, most particularly through ground water leaching. But even when questionable specimens are rejected, many results are still unusable, and explained away by contamination.

Assumption Three: No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava) can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.

This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

The method's unreliability is shown when rocks of known age are dated. For instance, the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens dates at 2.8 million years old! Such anomalous results are common.

So why give us anonymous quotes?

Lcash

[WillingToDie]

Did he just create a new account?

I would like to see the Polonium Halos addressed, though. 'Twould be interesting.

[Guest aworldofmanyfools]

then it is not science.

but speculation about ancient history based on radio dating of rocks is? no, I just live in a world of many fools, who will be put to shame, as sure as the sun rises

[Lcash]

Did he just create a new account?

I would like to see the Polonium Halos addressed, though. 'Twould be interesting.

The polonium issue is due to a study by Gentry. He discounted the effect of radon gas which is abundant in certain geologic rock such as granite and it also migrates causing halo's. Here is a link to a site refuting the polonium halo effect.

http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/pohalo/index.html

Lcash

[WillingToDie]

Did he just create a new account?

I would like to see the Polonium Halos addressed, though. 'Twould be interesting.

The polonium issue is due to a study by Gentry. He discounted the effect of radon gas which is abundant in certain geologic rock such as granite and it also migrates causing halo's. Here is a link to a site refuting the polonium halo effect.

http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/pohalo/index.html

Lcash

Many thanks, friend.

[greed4god]

I think there will be more discoveries made.

I think you are right....Noah Flood may very well turn out to be global.

[sheya joie]

and some are extremely short such as Franconium with a half life of 22 seconds

I think you meant Francium, right?

If the flood was local rather than global, why the need to gather all those animals? And couldn't they have simply moved to a non-flood area, instead of needing to build a huge boat?

[Lcash]

and some are extremely short such as Franconium with a half life of 22 seconds

I think you meant Francium, right?

If the flood was local rather than global, why the need to gather all those animals? And couldn't they have simply moved to a non-flood area, instead of needing to build a huge boat?

Yes you are correct and it is 22 minutes not seconds. (I was half asleep when I wrote that.)

A flood for Noah would necessitate his bringing all the animals for his surival. These could be used for agriculture and food sources. As for moving out by foot, the walls of the Mediteranean would have been unpassable for Noah and his family. It is like a huge wall surrounding everyone. A boat would be the only way to escape the onrushing waters.

Lcash

[Lcash]

Yes. A flood caused by the re-filling of the mediteranean very well could have covered mountains. The ground water in the surrounding coasts would have to rise and actualy gush forth due to the increased pressure. Since before this flood there was no rain which would be logical due to the local wind patterns over the european continent (some areas adjacent to mountains with similar wind patterns have not had rain in the last 400 years in Peru). The suden uprising of super moist air from the rushing water would have caused torrential rain over the entire Mediteranean area that could have lasted for months.

Now we get to the definition of mountains. The area of the Med that could have supported a popultion is around the present day coast. To them the coast itself is the high mountain because from their perspective that is what it looks like. The waters would also be able to take the Ark north and deposit in the hills of Ararat.

What would have been the outlet(s) for this flood? I am having a heck of a time imagining the flood waters reaching thousands of feet in height.

If one would imagine the world Noah lived in was on the shallow floor of what is now the Mediteranean sea then the water would not have to be thousands of feet high to cover all the high mountains that Noah saw and was fimiliar with. The shores of the present day Mediteranean to Noah woud have been High Mountains. So the terrestrial flooding would only have to cover the hills of Ararat in Turkey where it is reported that the Ark came to rest. This also lessens the number of animals that Noah had to have on board the Ark as all he needed were the regionaly unique animals and the animals needed for food and domestication.

Lcash