Noahs Ark and the Biblical World Wide Flood Never Happened

a reply to: cooperton

Well, yes. Geological history consists of big numbers.

a reply to: cooperton

"Tectonic plates move in tiny increments, about as fast as your fingernails grow, but over millions of years these tiny movements can have huge impacts!"

Yep. Big numbers. Not your imaginary little ones.

Have you read it all yet?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

Well, yes. Geological history consists of big numbers.

Lemme ask again, what's the empirical evidence for their claims?

Let's all just save time and admit they don't have any.

Peace.

a reply to: cooperton

I like how you think boulders in the middle of nowhere are evidence of a single mythological flood.

You're missing some things in favor of confirmation bias again. Like always.

I could explain every one of those. And "carried by water" is not one of them. But why bother?

Funny how you so zealously support a pop-sci blog article with no empirical evidence but then deny peer-reviewed research on another topic. It's as though you're totally biased

Kangaroo done hung the jury with the innocent... Jesus Christ, man. She didn't even get a fair trial.

Integrity: You're doing it wrong.

At least cop up when you've lost a point. You can essentially say anything lines up with God and perpetually hold whatever ridiculous claim you want. You can hold it as infallible and do those gaslighty narcissist projection things as you go.



I do not believe your message comes from on high. I think its amessage that just got stuck there. But if you are like me, it's probably rooted in "hatred in losing anything ever."

a reply to: cooperton

You have had it. Are they making it up?

Where is your empirical, or any, evidence to counter any of it?

You get presented with evidence yet you just stick your fingers in your ears.

I'm off to watch Match of the Day.

I'm done with this.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

You have had it. Are they making it up?

Where is your empirical, or any, evidence to counter any of it?

I was hoping you would ask. there is an abundance of evidence that all types of rock can form rather quickly.

Mudbrick is a term used for bricks that are made from mud. Mud, mixed with organic components, can be put in a mould and then let to dry in the sun. Within days you will get a brick that is lithified mud/sand. This is a rock. Technically it is a mudrock. There are also types of bricks that are metamorphic rock. Here is the Great Mosque of Djenne which was completed in 1907. It is made of lithified mudbrick, or in other words, mud that has become a rock:



Despite this process being obviously proven to occur quickly, it is often inferred that mudrock in nature must be millions of years old! It is actually subtly accepted within geology that rocks can form in days. Yet it has somehow became common thought that rocks must take millions of years to form. The main thing that tricks people into supposing rocks are millions of years old is radioactive dating of rocks. The lay-person trusts that the experts have a fool-proof method to date these rocks, but that is not the case. Take for example fresh volcanic rock being dated from 250,000-3,200,000 years old despite being known to be 25-50 years old:


source

These results came from the Geochron laboratory, a well-respected radiometric dating lab. The error comes from geologists assuming that there is no daughter isotope in the initial formation of the igneous rock. This greatly skews the data as being wayyyy older than it actually is. The truth is, you could essentially set the initial isotopic ratio to anything lower than the present day concentrations to yield whatever result you would like. Geologists usually calibrate it to the oldest possible date. This experiment on fresh lava rock shows that such an assumption is very wrong.

The same is true for stalactites, which were also erroneously supposed to be millions of years old. Thanks to empirical science conducted by independent researchers around the world, we can get a more accurate timescale for how long it takes stalactites to form.



The above video is a home experiment conducted that shows that limestone stalactites can form rather quickly. In the experiment above he found that the limestone stalactite will grow about 1ft every 10 years. That means 1,000 years can generate a 100ft stalactite. The record for the longest stalacatite every found is only 92ft long, in Brazil:



According to the experimental rate on limestone stalactite formation rate, this record-breaking stalactite could have formed in less than 1000 years. The confusion comes from random articles online making unbased claims, such as this article which arbitrarily claims that stalactites only grow about 4 inches every thousand years. Far different from the scientific experiment that showed 1000 years could generate a 100ft stalactite.

Human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs

After searching through old internet archives, I was able to find many examples of human footprints being found in limestone, sandstone, and even granite. This puts a huge monkey-wrench in the conventional ideas of the age of the earth and/or humans.






















-this one is a little hard to read, it says apparently human footprints found in limestone strata.




petrified head found while quarrying rock.




a teaser for a later thread, they found giants all over the place in North America over 9 ft tall.







This shows that human footprints found in limestone and sandstone is actually quite common. This further insists upon the validity of modern examples of such footprints that are dismissed for no reason besides them defying current theoretical dogma.


"Meister Print"




close-up of the Meister print showing the edge of the sandalprint




Closer zoom-in shows the sandal actually stepped on a trilobyte!




"Willet Track" 1950 dislodged from Limestone




"Zapata Track"










"Delk Print"




Analysis of compression shows that the Delk Print was not carved




Prints from Berea Kentucky in sandstone



The Paluxy riverbed deserves its own section, because there are more apparently human prints here than many are aware of. There are an abundance of dinosaur tracks in this layer, and also what many believe are human footprints.




Here are prints found at Paluxy riverbed. Scientists began presenting this information and apparently they triggered someone at one of their presentations because it was later found that someone went and destroyed the prints:




Notice how it is clear someone purposefully destroyed the above track with a digging iron or rock chisel? This sort of cognitive dissonance is astounding. They destroyed this scientific evidence because it disproved evolutionary theory.




Large cat-like animal print also in the Paluxy area. Mammals existing during this time is equally ruinous to the evolutionary timescale as is the presence of human footprints in these areas.




Another footprint by the Paluxy riverbed




Cast made of a footprint from Paluxy



Perhaps a few of these may be mis-identifications, but certainly not all of them. When you factor in the human depictions of dinosaurs in history, it is clear that evidence does not support the evolutionary timeline.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
Where is your empirical, or any, evidence to counter any of it?

You get presented with evidence yet you just stick your fingers in your ears.

I'm off to watch Match of the Day.

I'm done with this.

A thorough analysis of history shows compelling evidence that dinosaurs were in fact seen consistently throughout history. This truth has been incidentally buried in semantic ambiguity. The word "Dinosaur" was first used in 1842 by Sir Richard Owen and was defined as 'Terrible Lizard'. Prior to this date, reptilian creatures would have been referred to as dragons, or some other unique name that resembled their monstrous character.



The dragon slowly slipped into the category of mythology rather than history. But this is only due to the gradual extinction of dinosaurs over time. Most are not the seemingly embellished fire-breathing winged monsters, but rather, matter-of-fact accounts of real living creatures. Here we have another example of how dinosaurs/dragons were becoming extinct even in the 1614 when this article was printed:



Dinosaurs were depicted throughout the globe at all times. Here are some examples:


Brachiosaurus


Utah's White Canyon Region



Amazon Rain Forest Basin in Northern Peru


El Toro Mountain part of the "Acambaro Figurine" collection found by Waldemar Julsrud



Mesopotamian Cylinder Seal of Uruk currently housed in the Louvre


Housed at the British Museum



By the North American Anasazi in the area now known as Utah. A natural brownish film over top the cave drawing authenticates its age.




A mysterious excavation in Tucson Arizona unearthed 31 Roman-style artifacts. One of which was this sword.


Protoceratops



Hongshan carvings approximately 4,000 years ago China


It is also important to note that the average dinosaur was approximately the size of a full grown dog.




Stegasaurus



Girifalco region of Southern Italy.



Tyranosaurus Rex


Holy Trinity Church built in the 1300s in the country of Georgia.

These dinosaurs are not limited to physical depictions. They have also been written about. Extensively. Here is a beast from Beowulf, the Anglo-Saxon Epic:

"Grendel's swift hard claws
snatched at the first Geat
He came to, ripped him apart, cut
His body to bits with powerful jaws,
Drank the blood from his veins and bolted
Him down, hands and feet; death
And Grendel's great teeth came together,
Snapping life shut."

"but their weapons
Could not hurt him,
the sharpest and hardest iron
Could not scratch at Grendel's skin"

“The fiend reached for him with his claw, but he grasped it with set purpose, and
threw his weight on Grendel’s arm.”

This creature had huge jaws that could devour people whole, was bipedal with arms, and tough skin. This quite accurately describes a tyrannosaurus rex, or more accurately the Megalosaurus which fossils have been found in the Anglo-Saxon area. In Beowulf, Grendel, which means “to Below” (like you would imagine a T-rex-like creature would), even had a mother of the same kind, insisting it was a real biological creature.

This may be shocking. But scientific observation insists on the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs. Here is a picture of some red blood cell fragments and soft tissue (indicated by the arrow) found in Tyranosaurus Rex remains:


The Anglo Saxon language had many words to describe the various types of large reptilian creatures. The following is from “A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary” by John R. Clark Hall:

Ûhtfloga: twilight−flier dragon
Wîdfloga: wide−flier dragon
Draca: sea−monster dragon
Eorðdraca: dragon that lives in the earth.
Lyftflog: generic flying dragon
Nîðdraca: hostile dragon
sædraca: sea−dragon.
Wyrmhord: hoard of dragons

The Brachiosaurus was also written about. The writer of the book of Job clearly describes the attributes of a brachiosaurus and calls it ‘Behemoth’ (or ‘Bahamut’ for FF7 fans), a chief of the creations of God:

Job 40:15-23
“Lo, I pray thee, Behemoth, that I made with thee: Grass as an ox he eateth.
Lo, I pray thee, his power [is] in his loins, And his strength in the muscles of his
belly.
He doth bend his tail as a cedar, The sinews of his thighs are wrapped together,
His bones [are] tubes of brass, His bones [are] as a bar of iron.
He [is] a beginning of the ways of God, His Maker bringeth nigh his sword;
For food do mountains bear for him, And all the beasts of the field play there…
Lo, a flood oppresseth -- he doth not haste, He is confident though Jordan Doth
come forth unto his mouth.”
This shows Behemoth was an Herbivore, had a tail the size of a large tree, and was very large. There is only one animal like this in the history of the world. The Brachiosaurus. As shown in the Mesopotamian cylinder seal and the Egyptian plates, the brachiosaurus was a known creature in the region where Job would have been living.
Other well known historians have depicted dinosaurs in a very matter of fact manner.

Herodotus – 5th Century B.C.
“There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went,
on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and
spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The
form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without
feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat.”

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

Where is your empirical, or any, evidence to counter any of it?

John de Trokelow – 14th Century A.D.
"Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, the great
hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a
saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the
shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep."
The Travels of Marco Polo, 1948, Book 2, Chapter XL, pg. 185-186
"Leaving the city of Yachi, and traveling ten days in a westerly direction, you
reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name of the chief city....Here
are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length (about 30 feet), and ten
spans (about 8 feet) girt of the body. At the fore part, near the head, they
have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger, with eyes larger
than a forepenny loaf (pane da quattro denari) and very glaring."
An old Assiniboine (Native American) story tells of a war party that:
“…Traveled a long distance to unfamiliar lands and [saw] some large lizards.
The warriors held a council and discussed what they knew about those strange
creatures. They decided that those big lizards were bad medicine and should
be left alone. However, one warrior who wanted more war honors said that he
was not afraid of those animals and would kill one. He took his lance [a very
old weapon used before horses] and charged one of the large lizard type
animals and tried to kill it. But he had trouble sticking his lance in the
creature’s hide and during the battle he himself was killed and eaten.”
(Mayor, Fossil Legends of the First Americans, 2005, p. 294.)

The word dragon is also used in the Old Testament 25 times. Again, this describes large serpentine creatures, which is exactly what a dinosaur is.

Isaiah 27:1
“In that day lay a charge doth Jehovah, With his sword -- the sharp, and the
great, and the strong, On leviathan -- a fleeing serpent, And on leviathan -- a
crooked serpent, And He hath slain the dragon that [is] in the sea.”

Nearly every culture that has earned its way into history has a name for large serpentine creatures:

Carbon dating is one of the few dating methods that allows us a reasonable estimate on the beginning concentration of C-14 in a sample. If atmospheric C-14 ratios have remained consistent throughout history, then we will have fairly accurate C-14 results, with some degree of error due to the variability in organism and tissue accumulation of C-14. All C-14 tests done on dinosaur remains have returned an age range between 4,000-40,000 years old. Of course, all of this empirical data is shunned by the scientific elite because it would mean their life’s research regarding evolution would demonstrably impossible.
Here are the results:
QbdH3l1UjPQ
This presentation was promptly attacked by the secular thought-police.

They refused the data, not based on any sort of clerical or methods error, but rather, they blindly refused it based on their own bias. This is the opposite of how science should be conducted. These tests were conducted by accredited AMS Labs (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry). They stood by their results, until they discovered that their results indicated a 50,000 years old if that is the case. But in all attempts at carbon-dating dinosaurs, it has been younger than 40,000 years old.

I personally was looking to carbon-date some dinosaur bones I had bought at auction, and wanted to make sure that this was true. The scientist I was in correspondence with said:
“If the sample is >100 ka, the result would be, >50 ka as that is the limit on a radiocarbon analysis.”

She also insisted that shellac or other contaminants are no problem for even the most rudimentary C-14 pre-cleaning techniques:
Link: www.cambridge.org... oratory-ottawa-canada/9DCDE4DC291E00AD8AF00A63590D4FCF
Link2: www.researchgate.net...


That^ letter came after one of the lab techs at the Georgia University found their own results being shown on youtube as dinosaur samples. Here were the initial results:

It is apparent that the scientific community will be very stubborn despite the abundance of historical and scientific evidence demonstrating an earlier existence for dinosaurs. Be persistent and never quit looking for the truth.
To finish, there are multiple “myths” that are actually slightly embellished dinosaurs like Grendel in Beowulf. France has a very matter-of-fact story regarding the Tarasque - a dragon-like creature that had a shell covering its backside with a club tail. Here is their depiction of the Tarasque:

Looking past some of the embellishments, this is a telling representation of the ankylosaurus – shelled back, serpentine body, and a club tail:

originally posted by: cooperton
Lemme ask again, what's the empirical evidence for their claims?

You think 9,000 bc Atlantis was real because Plato wrote a fictional story about it in the 300s bc. There is no empirical evidence for it yet you believe it is somehow true. And now you are presented with science that is based on experimentation and observation and fact finding and evidence .. and you immediately reject it. Again .. how interesting.


Easily googled for those who actually want to know.

How and When Did Plate Tectonics Begin? Theoretical and Empirical Considerations with References

Plate Tectonics - Definition, Theory, Facts and Evidence
The theory of plate tectonics is based on a broad synthesis of geologic and geophysical data ...

Evolution of Plate Tectonics - Explanation and Evidence

Harvard Researchers Proof of Plate Tectonics
Using novel techniques and equipment, the researchers show that some of the Earth’s earliest surface was moving at a rate of 6.1 centimeters per year and 0.55 degrees every million years.

a reply to: cooperton

You posted this before and it was debunked.

Here be dragons?

Your Ankylosaurus has a human face and no club tail.

It didn't have a shelled back, either.

Close, but no cigar.

a reply to: cooperton

"I personally was looking to carbon-date some dinosaur bones I had bought at auction, and wanted to make sure that this was true. The scientist I was in correspondence with said:
“If the sample is >100 ka, the result would be, >50 ka as that is the limit on a radiocarbon analysis.”

So you bought some "dinosaur bones" on eBay?

Hey, I have a velociraptor for sale. Wanna buy it?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Shhhh...

Radiometric dating doesn't exist. They don't know how to date surrounding sediment minerals to determine age of indirectly.



And...



And these aren't stylized fish, they are AIRPLANES you can turn it into a glider!

Figurines taken out of context can prove anything.

Evidence given by Archaeologists, Egyptologists, Geologists, Geophysicists, Petrologists, Liminologists, Sedimentologists, Stratigraphologists, Volcanologists, Geospacial Engineers, Environmental scientists, Mining Engineers, Hydrologists, Glaciologists, Atmospheric Scientists, Meteorologists, Arborists, Chemists, Chemical Engineers, Organic Chemists, Bio Chemists, Biologists, Micro Biologists, Virologists, Oceanographers, Mechanical Engineers, Naval Engineers, Naval Architects, Botanists, Zoologists, Wildlife Biologists, Ornathologists, Ichthyologists, Entomologists, Mathematicians, Historians, Paleontologists, Agriculturists, Agronomists, Geneticists, Ecological Geneticists, animal geneticists, epigeneticists, Animal Reproductive Physiologists, Animal Pathologists, Anthropologists, Biological Anthropologists, Linguistic Anthropologists, Molecular Biologists, Pathologists, Mycologists, Sociologists, Human Geographers, Linguists, Theologians, Cognitive Scientists, Malacologists, and Carcinologists all say that the global flood did not happen in 2400BC.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

You posted this before and it was debunked.

Here be dragons?

Your Ankylosaurus has a human face and no club tail.

It didn't have a shelled back, either.



Close, but no cigar.

That's what the poster is doing in a number of threads. The new sport is recycling debunked claims and arguments with the hope new posters will not read what happened earlier in the threads and the old posters will get bored and give up trying to call out and debunk again the already debunked arguments.

I totally see the angle you're coming from—science, archaeology, and common sense seem to challenge the story head-on. And you're right; taken at face value, the logistics of building an ark, gathering millions of species, and ensuring their survival sounds beyond daunting. It's a tale that, scientifically speaking, has many points to thought.

what if the heart of the Noah story isn't in its literal details but in what it symbolizes? Many see it as an allegory

originally posted by: Belows
I totally see the angle you're coming from—science, archaeology, and common sense seem to challenge the story head-on. And you're right; taken at face value, the logistics of building an ark, gathering millions of species, and ensuring their survival sounds beyond daunting. It's a tale that, scientifically speaking, has many points to thought.

what if the heart of the Noah story isn't in its literal details but in what it symbolizes? Many see it as an allegory

Yor link is from this source

www.loveinbible.com...

Loveinbible sounds like a Christian website that has come to terms with reality and offers the usual alternative explanation of an allegory when in fact large parts of history have been dedicated by the church and its representatives to convince people this is literally what happened.

We all know it was never meant to be an allegory no matter how ambiguous Biblical stories are according to some Christians.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
We all know it was never meant to be an allegory no matter how ambiguous Biblical stories are according to some Christians.

Genesis was written around 500 BC. I am not a Jewish scholar and don't have Jewish texts here to check, but I would think that the authors probably actually believed the story to be true. I could be wrong. I can't find anything online that says what the people who wrote Genesis were thinking at the time. Jewish tradition is that Moses wrote it. But that's impossible. I don't know what modern Jews think of the story either .. if they believe it is historical or not.

The Catholic Council of Carthage put the bible together in 397AD. They decided to use the Jewish holy books as the Old Testament. I have a lot of texts here about church history and bible history, but nothing speaks to the mindset of those who put the bible together if they actually believed it was literal history or if they thought it was just a myth that taught a lesson on God. There might be something deep in the Vatican archives about why the Council picked those books, but I don't have it and I can't find it online.

We have four bibles in this house. When we read the bible we use the one printed in 1970. It has footnotes. In the footnotes for the Noahs Ark passages it states that the story is not to be read as literal history. This has been the teaching of the Catholic church for a long time but I can't say if any official pronouncements were made on it or if it was always the teaching that it wasn't literal history. I don't have that information.

For the protestants - I'm pretty sure the fundamentalists believe it's literal history. Baptist, Church of Christ, etc. But the regular mainline ones like Episcopal and Lutheran and Methodist etc have their own sets of beliefs on this and it could go either way. We would have to ask multiple ministers from each of those denominations what the teaching is. (I can't be bothered)

originally posted by: Belows
what if the heart of the Noah story isn't in its literal details but in what it symbolizes? Many see it as an allegory

I'm not the author of this thread but I'm pretty sure it was in response to one that went on for 92 pages, where the OP of that thread insisted it was literal.

Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

a reply to: FlyersFan

you forget one thing

GOD can do anything

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
We all know it was never meant to be an allegory no matter how ambiguous Biblical stories are according to some Christians.

Genesis was written around 500 BC. I am not a Jewish scholar and don't have Jewish texts here to check, but I would think that the authors probably actually believed the story to be true. I could be wrong. I can't find anything online that says what the people who wrote Genesis were thinking at the time. Jewish tradition is that Moses wrote it. But that's impossible. I don't know what modern Jews think of the story either .. if they believe it is historical or not.

The Catholic Council of Carthage put the bible together in 397AD. They decided to use the Jewish holy books as the Old Testament. I have a lot of texts here about church history and bible history, but nothing speaks to the mindset of those who put the bible together if they actually believed it was literal history or if they thought it was just a myth that taught a lesson on God. There might be something deep in the Vatican archives about why the Council picked those books, but I don't have it and I can't find it online.

We have four bibles in this house. When we read the bible we use the one printed in 1970. It has footnotes. In the footnotes for the Noahs Ark passages it states that the story is not to be read as literal history. This has been the teaching of the Catholic church for a long time but I can't say if any official pronouncements were made on it or if it was always the teaching that it wasn't literal history. I don't have that information.

For the protestants - I'm pretty sure the fundamentalists believe it's literal history. Baptist, Church of Christ, etc. But the regular mainline ones like Episcopal and Lutheran and Methodist etc have their own sets of beliefs on this and it could go either way. We would have to ask multiple ministers from each of those denominations what the teaching is. (I can't be bothered)

The problem are the retrospective claims made when it comes to the Biblical stories. We all know these stories are told by the authors who believed they were true and so Christians (at least until very recently) believe them to be true too.

I can't see why people insist and take these stories literally in the 21st century. They are clearly works of fiction and I don't think Jewish mythology has any place in today's secular western societies.