There was no flood.

(October 27, 2018 at 8:50 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(October 27, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Are you doubting Bishop Ussher's calculations?  Even if we add a humongous fudge factor you still don't get an earth that is billions of years old.

So I'll ask you again, what do you base your belief in an old earth upon, and how do you reconcile it with the bible?

I believe Adam and Eve lived about 200,000 - 400,000 years ago in the Middle East.  I believe the generations highlighted in the Bible are just that "highlights."  I believe after the flood, the dates are more recent.

Believe all you want. Where are the Bible verses to back up your claims?

(October 27, 2018 at 8:50 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(October 27, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Are you doubting Bishop Ussher's calculations?  Even if we add a humongous fudge factor you still don't get an earth that is billions of years old.

So I'll ask you again, what do you base your belief in an old earth upon, and how do you reconcile it with the bible?

I believe Adam and Eve lived about 200,000 - 400,000 years ago in the Middle East.  I believe the generations highlighted in the Bible are just that "highlights."  I believe after the flood, the dates are more recent.

eeeeeeeeeeeew, not only is that not in magic book......but that would mean that adam and eve were not fully modern human beings.  It also means that all the cursed to till the earth bullshit was...well..bullshit.....by about 190k to 390k years.

Good job.

(October 27, 2018 at 11:17 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: There was no flood.

Yes, there was.  Even other religions tell a flood story.

---

(October 28, 2018 at 12:01 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(October 27, 2018 at 8:50 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I believe Adam and Eve lived about 200,000 - 400,000 years ago in the Middle East.  I believe the generations highlighted in the Bible are just that "highlights."  I believe after the flood, the dates are more recent.

Believe all you want. Where are the Bible verses to back up your claims?

It's not explicitly stated in the Bible so have to use science to determine the age of the first humans.

---

(October 28, 2018 at 12:27 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 27, 2018 at 8:50 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I believe Adam and Eve lived about 200,000 - 400,000 years ago in the Middle East.  I believe the generations highlighted in the Bible are just that "highlights."  I believe after the flood, the dates are more recent.

eeeeeeeeeeeew, not only is that not in magic book......but that would mean that adam and eve were not fully modern human beings.  It also means that all the cursed to till the earth bullshit was...well..bullshit.....by about 190k to 390k years.

Good job.

Human bones have been discovered that are aged that long ago if the measurements can be trusted for accuracy.  It gets tough at these ages to measure from my understanding.  There are techniques though to do it.

(June 26, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Human bones have been discovered that are aged that long ago if the measurements can be trusted for accuracy.  It gets tough at these ages to measure from my understanding.  There are techniques though to do it.

Techniques Shmecniques.  you really gonna believe some fancy-pants scientist with so-called book learnin and diplomas?!

(October 28, 2018 at 2:11 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 8:34 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Human bones have been discovered that are aged that long ago if the measurements can be trusted for accuracy.  It gets tough at these ages to measure from my understanding.  There are techniques though to do it.

Techniques Shmecniques.  you really gonna believe some fancy-pants scientist with so-called book learnin and diplomas?!

Not always no.  Science is way too political for that.

(October 28, 2018 at 1:21 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(October 28, 2018 at 12:27 am)Khemikal Wrote: eeeeeeeeeeeew, not only is that not in magic book......but that would mean that adam and eve were not fully modern human beings.  It also means that all the cursed to till the earth bullshit was...well..bullshit.....by about 190k to 390k years.

Good job.

Human bones have been discovered that are aged that long ago if the measurements can be trusted for accuracy.  It gets tough at these ages to measure from my understanding.  There are techniques though to do it.

You should probably go and google full modernity.  While you're at it, the history of ag.  I don't know what to say other than that your extra-biblical faith commitments have compelled you to say fantastically dumb things.

If you need these things for your religion to be true, you're in a bad spot..because they're demonstrably false. Hilariously, the YECers actually have better position when it comes to the timeframe involved for their narative to be remotely credible..they just have trouble dealing with all those billions of years that precede their stupid story.

(October 26, 2018 at 7:33 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(October 26, 2018 at 6:05 pm)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote: No it doesn't. It doesn't go into much detail about anything though does it?.. That's why we have old and young earth creationists.. That's why you lot can't agree on the basics of your religion, that's why we atheists are so confused about what all the fuss is about.

The Bible is not a science book.  It is not intended to give these sorts of details.  These details were discovered by science.

Good on you.  On this much we can agree.

---

(October 27, 2018 at 12:43 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 26, 2018 at 7:33 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The Bible is not a science book.  It is not intended to give these sorts of details.  These details were discovered by science.

How do you know what the bible was intended to do?  Are you God?

Perhaps he is a cognitive objectivist theist?  Just trying out some new terminology.  (Yeah, I don't know what I mean exactly either.)

---

(October 27, 2018 at 8:50 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(October 27, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Are you doubting Bishop Ussher's calculations?  Even if we add a humongous fudge factor you still don't get an earth that is billions of years old.

So I'll ask you again, what do you base your belief in an old earth upon, and how do you reconcile it with the bible?

I believe Adam and Eve lived about 200,000 - 400,000 years ago in the Middle East.  I believe the generations highlighted in the Bible are just that "highlights."  I believe after the flood, the dates are more recent.

But do you believe that human beings share common ancestry with chimps, mice and fish? Do you believe in a figurative 'Adam'?

(October 27, 2018 at 8:50 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(October 27, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Are you doubting Bishop Ussher's calculations?  Even if we add a humongous fudge factor you still don't get an earth that is billions of years old.

So I'll ask you again, what do you base your belief in an old earth upon, and how do you reconcile it with the bible?

I believe Adam and Eve lived about 200,000 - 400,000 years ago in the Middle East.  I believe the generations highlighted in the Bible are just that "highlights."  I believe after the flood, the dates are more recent.

Ah, the "Let's make that shit up" school of theology.

---

(October 28, 2018 at 2:39 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(October 28, 2018 at 2:11 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Techniques Shmecniques.  you really gonna believe some fancy-pants scientist with so-called book learnin and diplomas?!

Not always no.  Science is way too political for that.

And yet again. Ignorance is a fort in Texas.

CDF47 Wrote:Yes there was. Even other religions tell a flood story. 

Of course there were floods. There are local floods all the time on the planet Earth.  
There was no "world-wide" flood as described in Genesis that wiped out humanity. It simply never happened. 
DNA proves that. Genetic diversity. Mutation rates are known. Also the genetic bottle-neck (as demonstrated in the video I posted), would have wiped out homo sapiens. 
You did not even attempt to refute THE FACTS that were presented to you in the video. If you are competent enough (you aren't) to claim that DNA is "information" then you ought to know enough to refute the video. You can't. Your Bible is bogus. 

Goodwithoutgod's (TTA) proof .... there was no world-wide flood. 

"The Great Global Flood myth

Egyptian civilization is probably familiar to most of us. Egypt’s dynastic history started with the uniting of Upper and Lower Egypt by King Menes, around 3100 BCE. The Egyptian period known as the “Old Kingdom” lasted from 2800 to 2175 BCE. During this time many of the pyramids were built. There is no record, written or archaeological, for a monster flood destroying and completely interrupting this countries infrastructure or it’s monuments such as the Sphinx, the Step Pyramid, or the Great Pyramids, which were built before ‘The Flood’. Neither were they wiped out.

China has a reasonably accurate history starting around 3000 BCE. According to texts from a Chinese book called “Shu King” and verified by archaeological records, China was undergoing a prosperous period around 2400 to 2200 BCE during the early Yaou Dynasty. They have no record of a cataclysmic flood interrupting their whole civilization and destroying the infrastructure of the country. Neither were they wiped out.

The Indus valley civilization has a well-known history dating back to perhaps 3100 BCE. By 2500 BCE there were two major cities, Mohendaro (or Mohenjo-Daro) and Harrapa, which rivaled Egypt and Mesopotamia in population and technologies. This great Civilization also encompassed maybe 100 smaller cities, towns, and villages, and didn’t fall until about 1500 BCE. They have no record of a worldwide civilization-destroying flood. Neither were they wiped out.

The Minoan civilization was probably as old as Egypt. Based on the Island of Crete, this civilization grew quickly and was highly advanced by 2500 BCE. By the middle of the second millennium it had an alphabet, used bronze tools, had pottery, textiles, advanced architecture, and had established cities around the Islands. It continued to grow and was a center for trade and culture until about the mid-1400′s BCE when it was suddenly destroyed by the violent eruption of the Thera volcano. There has been no evidence unearthed from this civilization that shows a flood destroying their whole infrastructure, at any time in their existence. Neither were they wiped out.

Trees that were completely submerged in salt water would have died, so when we look at trees that are say 10,000 years old, and not only did they live past the "mythical flood' but they show zero evidence of a flood. Can you find trees with flood evidence ? Sure, that shows there was a local flood, not worldwide, submerged flood that killed all life including vegetation. you are familiar with barometric pressure of course so you understand introducing that much magical water into our system would have wrecked it right? There is not enough water on or in the earth to cover the planet under 40 feet above the highest mountain.

The conventional flood story states that the flood waters came from rain that lasted 40 days and 40 night right? Rain appears when the atmosphere can no longer support water in the vapor phase and it becomes saturated. So normally, the atmosphere is on the brink of saturation, and the variations in temperature and pressure caused by weather fronts are capable of altering the threshold at which precipitation will form quite easily. What about the amount of water vapor suspended in air needed for the 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water needed for the global flood? The water vapor currently in the air is only around 2-3% on average, with a maximum of 4% limited by temperature and pressure.

The change in atmospheric conditions required to support enough vapor for 112 million cubic kilometers of rain per day - about 120,000 times more than the current daily rainfall worldwide - would have rendered the air unbreathable.

Indeed, the atmosphere really couldn't sustain that much water even under the most extreme temperature and pressure conditions the planet can produce. If the conditions were right for that much water to be in the atmosphere, humans and virtually every other animal would have drowned through the simple act of breathing, as well as turning the earth into the equivalent of a pressure cooker with atmospheric pressure at nearly a thousand psi instead of the standard 14.7 or so that we have today.

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. The fact that Greenland even exists single handedly refutes the flood.

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?

Repopulation issue

The global flood story requires that only eight people were left alive in 2349 BCE. This does not allow enough time for humans to repopulate the earth. In 2000 BCE only 350 years after the flood the population of the world was 27 million. To go from a population of eight to a population of 27 million in 350 years would require a population growth rate of 136.07%. That is 133% more than the fastest growing portions of the world today.

The Bible also places the date of construction on the Tower of Babel roughly 100 years after the great flood. Saying a population could go from 6 people (Noah and his wife don't count, they didn't have any more children) to enough people to build the Tower of Babel as it is described in the Bible is absurd. This tower was so great that it threatened God, so it must have been greater that the pyramid of Khufu which took 30,000 people to build. Even a growth rate of 500%, which is absurd beyond all imagination, would only produce about half the required people to even begin to think about such a construction project.


The Ark

I won’t get into the issue of how pandas, and polar bears, and ants, and anteaters, and sloths etc etc all animals from all over the world from different continents somehow swam/flew/crawled across massive oceans to line up for the ark cruise…or what they ate, or where the poop went, or how they breathed from that tiny window, or how the different species survived from various climates and requiring specific foods. I will dabble into some building issues however;

Noah's Ark was a great rectangular box of gopherwood, or perhaps some combination of other woods colloquially referred to as gopherwood. Its dimensions are given as 137 meters long, 23 meters wide, and 14 meters high. This is very, very big; it would have been the longest wooden ship ever built. These dimensions rank it as one of history's greatest engineering achievements; but they also mark the start of our sea trials, our test of whether or not it's possible for this ship to have ever sailed, or indeed, been built at all.

Would it have been possible to find enough material to build Noah's Ark? When another early supership was built, the Great Michael (completed in Scotland in 1511) it was said to have consumed "all the woods of Fife". Fife was a county in Scotland famous for its shipbuilding. The Great Michael's timber had to be purchased and imported not only from other parts of Scotland, but also from France, the Baltic Sea, and from a large number of cargo ships from Norway. Yet at 73 meters, she was only about half the length of Noah's Ark. Clearly a ship twice the length of the Great Michael, and larger in all other dimensions, would have required many times as much timber. It's never been clearly stated exactly where Noah's Ark is said to have been built, but it would have been somewhere in Mesopotamia, probably along either the Tigris or Euphrates rivers. This area is now Iraq, which has never been known for its abundance of shipbuilding timber.

Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter Wyoming (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter Santiago (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking."