It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

page: 17
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki


You see, we CAN determine whether the minerals are in their original state or have been altered.

Not true at all. You cannot tell whether the composition of a rock is pristine from it's inception unless you are there with the same method at its inception and no one has lived 4.5 billion years ago. Impossible assumption on your part. Guess again. Noah's flood is a possibility.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede



Lets just completely remove your bizarre obsession with dating techniques completely out of the equation. Te atmospheric conditions and pressure from the water canopy in the atmosphe entirely precludes human and most other non extremophile life forms from the earth. There couldn't even have been a Noah let Lone an ark and flood. You're grasping at straws here and running a classic Gish gallop by picking part so many minuscule pieces of data that it is impossible to properly reply and when people do reply and support their positions you still dismiss it out of hand. Please read through my own posts in this tread because I rather adeptly explained the impossibility of this at least once and probably twice. You're just bantering like a mad hatter at this point. Nobody is going to convince you how wrong you are and nobody is really inclined to continue to entertain your increasingly disheveled ramblings. I'm legitimately starting to feel concerned for your metal well being. Best of luck to you and your Santa Claus of Floods because there's as much evidence for Santa as their is Noah at this point.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: aorAki


You see, we CAN determine whether the minerals are in their original state or have been altered.

Not true at all. You cannot tell whether the composition of a rock is pristine from it's inception unless you are there with the same method at its inception and no one has lived 4.5 billion years ago. Impossible assumption on your part. Guess again. Noah's flood is a possibility.


Nope, not impossible. There are so many ways to determine the original composition of a rock, and to determine whether it has undergone alteration. Just because you don't understand geology doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Noah's flood is not a possibility because there is nothing in the geologic record that indicates this...



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um he never said that he was judging the intellect of the person, just the intellectual merit of the ideas being pushed by creationists. Smart people can hold dumb opinions, and his point was that having an opinion doesn't necessitate it being a good opinion. You should stop twisting the words of the people you are speaking to, it is in very poor form and highly insulting. I think your emotions may be bleeding through into your posts.

Um re read your post. You contradict yourself. When one judges the intellect of another that is the intellectual merit of a mind (Ideas do come from the mind do they not?) Yes smart people can present dumb ideas and yes it is true that having an opinion does not mean it is a good opinion. I do see this on this thread.

Getting back to the OP and his post. Can you show me where I have insisted that there was a global flood? Have I ever said that there is proof of a global flood? A global flood is a possibility regardless of your radiometric flawed methodology. It is flawed isn't it ? I think we wore out all of the name calling. My first question long ago was that radiometric dating was not an exact science and is flawed. No further comments are necessary to shoot the messenger as it is a fact. I don't need well intentional students to insist that it is not a fact. Be angry all you like but it won't make a flawed science into a perfect science. Acceptable to you and your assumptions perhaps but to others perhaps not. It has been amusing to say the least.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um he never said that he was judging the intellect of the person, just the intellectual merit of the ideas being pushed by creationists. Smart people can hold dumb opinions, and his point was that having an opinion doesn't necessitate it being a good opinion. You should stop twisting the words of the people you are speaking to, it is in very poor form and highly insulting. I think your emotions may be bleeding through into your posts.

Um re read your post. You contradict yourself. When one judges the intellect of another that is the intellectual merit of a mind (Ideas do come from the mind do they not?) Yes smart people can present dumb ideas and yes it is true that having an opinion does not mean it is a good opinion. I do see this on this thread.

Getting back to the OP and his post. Can you show me where I have insisted that there was a global flood? Have I ever said that there is proof of a global flood? A global flood is a possibility regardless of your radiometric flawed methodology. It is flawed isn't it ? I think we wore out all of the name calling. My first question long ago was that radiometric dating was not an exact science and is flawed. No further comments are necessary to shoot the messenger as it is a fact. I don't need well intentional students to insist that it is not a fact. Be angry all you like but it won't make a flawed science into a perfect science. Acceptable to you and your assumptions perhaps but to others perhaps not. It has been amusing to say the least.



Call science flawed all you want, theisn is crippled and dying in comparison. But yeah, global floods are impossible. Proven again and again in this very thread. Keep grasping at straws, Mr seed, but be aware that we know that's all your doing.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede

I love the way you also twist and turn. Your quote -" Is there some probability involved? absolutely, so you get a range due to the +/-" Then you do have a range of error? Is that not what I said?


No, what you are implying is this

Range =/= exact timestamp; therefore, radiometric dating cannot be consider any more accurate than the bible.

This is untrue. There is some probability involved in radiometric dating when dealing with decay rates, though the fluctuation is very small and is accounted for.

Now let's add in another point behind science. The ability to make predictions. You could pluck another crystal from that same pluton, say a zircon crystal, run a uranium isotope test and you will end up with a date that agrees with the K-AR dating from the feldspar. To be able to successfully satisfy that prediction shows the method is accurate. This has been done time and time again. The dating methods agree with each other. This means it is accurate.

Now another example, lets say we have a metamorphosed granite pluton, called a gneiss. Now during the mountain building process, we have a granite intrusion known as a dike or sill form into the pluton. By default the intrusion of granite is younger than the rock it is crossing. Now, we can make the prediction that we should get a younger age radiometric dating the granite from the gneiss. Once again we see from these types of experiments that we consistently meet those predictions. We know how fast the sea floor spreads, subduction zones, mountain building processes. Geology is very well understood and there are several other factors that corroborate radiometric dates. It does not, however, support a global flood.

As for how we are able to predict what the chemical compound of the rock should be, look up Bowen's reaction series for a basic understanding, at least for igneous rocks.


edit on 5-9-2014 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
A global flood is a possibility regardless of your radiometric flawed methodology.


No, a global flood is only hypothetically possible if all tectonic activity ceased and over billions of years the entire Earths surface was eroded back down to sea level.

It is simply not a possibility on this planet. And most certainly has never happened (notwithstanding that billons of years ago 90-95% of the Earths surface may have been covered in water, as opposed to 70% today - volcanic activity at the time, before continents as we know them formed, still created a considerable amount of land area, equivalent at least to the modern day USA)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I agree it is a possibility, but that possibility is ridiculously low to the point of impossibility given all the scientific evidence against it happening. So many assumptions have to be made that are just outright insane (especially for a supposedly perfect being, why would it go in such a roundabout way of doing it when it could just kill all the sinners without hurting the good people and the animals on the planet? Why does EVERYTHING have to die?) that it makes logical sense to just believe it didn't happen.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Thank you so much for this post. I always love it when real science confirms the Bible.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: mikefougnie
Reading isn't your strong suit is it? Science in no way supports a singular, global flood. It does the exact opposite in fact.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikefougnie
Thank you so much for this post. I always love it when real science confirms the Bible.


With that comment, I doubt you have read through this thread, as there is no evidence for a global flood.
Deny ignorance.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikefougnie
Thank you so much for this post. I always love it when real science confirms the Bible.


and thank you for providing an exemplary demonstration of what some people around here refer to as 'cognitive dissonance'.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Check out "Center For Scientific Creation" by Walt Brown



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: tbird03
Check out "Center For Scientific Creation" by Walt Brown



That's a great example of basing your science on religious delusion/psychosis. About as "off with the fairies" as it gets.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If you are speaking about the global flood, you are speaking about god. Natural sciences don't make room for a global flood since it is scientifically impossible, there isn't enough water on the earth to cover the planet.

You are right. Natural (secular Humanistic) science does not make room for a global flood but I stop there because not all knowledge is in yet. And probably never will be complete in your life time. You are probably right to assume that there is not enough water on this present day planet to cover this present day planet. That sounds reasonable. No argument intended as far as you have postulated. Now in your opinion what if this world were 40% smaller with the same volume of water that is now upon this globe; could there be enough water to then cover this world with a global flood? How high would that water be?



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede


Natural (secular Humanistic) science

Also known as "observable, testable, reproducible science". What other kind of science are you referring to that would allow for a global flood?


You are probably right to assume that there is not enough water on this present day planet to cover this present day planet. That sounds reasonable. No argument intended as far as you have postulated. Now in your opinion what if this world were 40% smaller with the same volume of water that is now upon this globe; could there be enough water to then cover this world with a global flood? How high would that water be?

What's your evidence for the Earth being 40% smaller when there were people living on it? I mean, if we're discussing possibilities, Frank the giant purple space unicorn could also have micturated that water onto the Earth. Are you ready to accept that as a plausible explanation for a global flood as well?



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Maybe, but you are going to have to produce the evidence that the earth was actually 40% smaller 4000 or so years ago when the alleged flood occurred. Though, to be honest, the size of the earth present day and past is irrelevant since the geologic record has ZERO evidence of a flood that covered the entire planet. When speaking about a global flood, the evidence should exist no matter where you dig on the planet. You could dig in your backyard and find it. Yet none exists. So start there before coming up with crazy hypotheses for how the current amount of water on the planet could end up covering the planet.

By the way, if the earth were 40% smaller, then the gravity of the earth would be 40% less. That means that the atmospheric content would be VERY different than what it is today since the gravity wouldn't be able to hold as much gas near the surface of the planet. That would mean that humans would have been reliant on different gas compositions in the past than today. It is unlikely that humans would be able to thrive in both conditions. So you'll also have to explain that as well.

Oh and since gravity would be weaker, humans should be taller (heck all life should be bigger then) and weaker since there isn't as much gravity pulling you to the ground. All animal life would have evolved VERY differently under a smaller gravitational pull. Your hypothesis contradicts many other scientific theories making it VERY unlikely to have occurred. Combine that with the missing evidence in the geologic record and I'd say that your hypothesis is wrong.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If you are speaking about the global flood, you are speaking about god. Natural sciences don't make room for a global flood since it is scientifically impossible, there isn't enough water on the earth to cover the planet.

You are right. Natural (secular Humanistic) science does not make room for a global flood but I stop there because not all knowledge is in yet. And probably never will be complete in your life time. You are probably right to assume that there is not enough water on this present day planet to cover this present day planet. That sounds reasonable. No argument intended as far as you have postulated. Now in your opinion what if this world were 40% smaller with the same volume of water that is now upon this globe; could there be enough water to then cover this world with a global flood? How high would that water be?


how many times are you going to ask the same damn questions. you have already been answered. multiple times. asking again or rewording your question wont change the answer.

deal with it.
edit on 1-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki
...there is no evidence for a global flood. Deny ignorance.



There is almost complete agreement among the hundreds of flood legends found among nearly all the nations and tribes worldwide. The simple fact that so many of these accounts agree in so many vital points makes it very obvious that they could not possibly have originated from separate events.


originally posted by: CherubBaby
Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.


originally posted by: Sun Matrix
It's hard to find a culture without a flood story........Noah is the real deal.

originally posted by: lonewolf19792000
I hate to burst your bubble of self delusion but it must be done. Archeaology has already proved the "great flood" in fact has happened. Archeaology has also proved Jericho did exist and in the spot the bible said it did and that it was also razed and burnt to the ground. Archeaology has also proved that Troy actually did exist and that it too was razed to the ground. Archeaology has also proved that Herodium in fact did exist and many ancient cities in Israel that are in the bible actually did exist like Caesaria and even the Temple of Herod and jewish coins from the first century A.D. were in fact discovered at the base of the Mt. Moriah with maccabee inscriptions on them. Archeaology is a well established and well respected science by the world scientific community world wide, it is hardly "psuedo-science".

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Flood myths are almost universal, and the one of the Miao people in China has preserved the names of all the patriarchs of Genesis PHONETICALLY for all those centuries. Yes, they got the names of Noah, his wife, and his sons all correct, sounding more than merely recognizable. I can't buy the local flood theories - I mean there were and are local floods, but the big one is preserved in the entire sedimentary layers around the world. You can interpret them as laid down during millions of years if you want, but I think rapid deposition is at least a valid an interpretation.


"And the odds become even longer that Noah's Flood is not an historical fact when one considers the hundreds of tribes from around the world that have ancestral knowledge of the global Flood. And yet, we are expected to ignore this overwhelming evidence because it contradicts current mainstream science and archaeology.

Hundreds of tribal legends and ancient accounts from Egypt, Babylon, and the Indus confirm the account of Noah's Flood from the book of Genesis. These tribes and ancient cultures obviously had no interest in copying a Hebrew account about a global Flood, therefore, all of these accounts must have been independently derived by the various people-groups' ancestors from the eight who were on the vessel that endured the global Flood. When the eight reproduced and spread out across the Middle East, and soon thereafter, much of the world (as some were demonstrably excellent mariners), the memory of the worldwide Flood was retained, and to a not-surprisingly great degree."

The Ancients Knew of the Global Flood

What is the significance of the various flood legends? The answer seems obvious: (a) we have well over 200 flood legends that tell of a great flood (and possibly more than 500); (b) many of the legends come from different ages and civilizations that could not possibly have copied any of the similar legends; (c) the legends were recorded long before any missionaries arrived to relate to them the Genesis account of Noah; and (d) almost all civilizations have some sort of flood legend. The conclusion to be drawn from such facts is that in the distant past, there was a colossal flood that forever affected the history of all civilizations.

Preserved in the myths and legends of almost every people on the face of the globe is the memory of the great catastrophe. While myths may not have any scientific value, yet they are significant in indicating the fact that an impression was left in the minds of the races of mankind that could not be erased.

Legends of the Flood

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke
And here is the clincher that is unarguable proof of the great flood: Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

There have been terrible fires that have ravaged villages and cities in all cultures throughout history. Therefore, using your logic, there must have been a global fire that consumed the world.

Don't be daft.

Bonus LOL points for citing creationist website. Don't overdo the intellectual dishonesty, there!
edit on 1-10-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join