Dating the Flood back 650 years

[excreationist]

Answers in Genesis, etc, date the Flood to be 2350 BC while the pyramids of Giza are dated at 2550 BC. But it seems that a more Biblical dating of the Flood is actually about 3000 BC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
This makes the Biblical record seem more reliable though I still believe in an old earth.

 

[bilby]

Answers in Genesis, etc, date the Flood to be 2350 BC while the pyramids of Giza are dated at 2550 BC. But it seems that a more Biblical dating of the Flood is actually about 3000 BC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
This makes the Biblical record seem more reliable though I still believe in an old earth.

All of the archaeological and geological evidence says that there was no 'The Flood'.

This makes the Biblical 'record' pure fiction.

 

[excreationist]

All of the archaeological and geological evidence says that there was no 'The Flood'.

This makes the Biblical 'record' pure fiction.

I thought this video presents some pretty good evidence of a global Flood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd5-dHxOQhg

 

[Keith&Co.]

All of the archaeological and geological evidence says that there was no 'The Flood'.

This makes the Biblical 'record' pure fiction.

I thought this video presents some pretty good evidence of a global Flood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd5-dHxOQhg

I don't really want to contribute to the hits on a global flood video.
What is some of the evidence?

 

[Bronzeage]

I have more experience with floods than I ever wanted, but it's left me with a few observations. First, when you are surrounded by water, it's not difficult to believe the entire world is flooded. Second, anyone with a boat has an advantage during a flood.

So, here we have the most likely scenario for a story told by any flood victim at any point in history. There is a natural progression by which stories become more interesting through time as it is repeated. We start off with a man who lived by a river with his family and their pet sheep, Wooly. Our man is clever and decides a raft would be useful to have. The raft comes in handy when it rains for four days and he is able to save his flock from drowning.

Take this completely plausible story and run it through 14 generation and we get Noah and the Ark. In a sense, it's all true, except for the incredible parts. Of all the reasons to disbelieve any particular detail of a story, "It's impossible," is still number one.

 

[Sarpedon]

Answers in Genesis, etc, date the Flood to be 2350 BC while the pyramids of Giza are dated at 2550 BC. But it seems that a more Biblical dating of the Flood is actually about 3000 BC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
This makes the Biblical record seem more reliable though I still believe in an old earth.

Which do you think is more correct and why?

 

[excreationist]

Answers in Genesis, etc, date the Flood to be 2350 BC while the pyramids of Giza are dated at 2550 BC. But it seems that a more Biblical dating of the Flood is actually about 3000 BC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
This makes the Biblical record seem more reliable though I still believe in an old earth.

Which do you think is more correct and why?

In the video it shows there are 4 versions of the genealogies. The version most English Bibles use involve 30's but 3 of the 4 versions involve 130's. So it seems 130's are the correct numbers.

 

[excreationist]

All of the archaeological and geological evidence says that there was no 'The Flood'.

This makes the Biblical 'record' pure fiction.

I thought this video presents some pretty good evidence of a global Flood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd5-dHxOQhg

I don't really want to contribute to the hits on a global flood video.
What is some of the evidence?

Well it says that there are ocean floor fossils on some mountains... I recommend watching it - it has 1.4 million views so your viewing wouldn't make much difference.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well it says that there are ocean floor fossils on some mountains...

Uh-huh.
Actually, they're IN some mountains, but, yeah. That's something of a PRATT.
Mountains formed by upthrust can have all kinds of things in them.

I recommend watching it -

Well if fossils in mountain tops is the best evidence in it, imma go with cold day in Hell.

it has 1.4 million views so your viewing wouldn't make much difference.

Not exactly the point of my refusal....

 

[excreationist]

.....Well if fossils in mountain tops is the best evidence in it, imma go with cold day in Hell.

You only asked for an example so I just mentioned the one I could understand that I was already familiar with. It also talks about catastrophic plate tectonics, dinosaur graveyards, tsunamis, and "megasequences". BTW you can double the playback speed. I barely follow what it is saying so I would rather you check out the video for yourself rather than having me try and summarise what it is saying.

 

[Keith&Co.]

.....Well if fossils in mountain tops is the best evidence in it, imma go with cold day in Hell.

You only asked for an example so I just mentioned the one I could understand that I was already familiar with.

Es macht nichts.
If thry offer that up at all as evidence, they're either stupid or lying.
It would be like me saying you owe me $100, and as evidence i offer the fact that the treasury prints $100 bills.

You have to ignore a lot of geology to think that is more compelling evidence FOR the flood than against it.

I barely follow what it is saying

Dude, YOU said 'pretty good evidence.'
If most of the video goes over your head, then please explain the logic you used to reach that conclusion.

 

[excreationist]

Es macht nichts.
If thry offer that up at all as evidence, they're either stupid or lying.

Creationists believe that the Flood covered all of the land. I think fossils being in mountains is good evidence of this.

It would be like me saying you owe me $100, and as evidence i offer the fact that the treasury prints $100 bills.

You have to ignore a lot of geology to think that is more compelling evidence FOR the flood than against it.

How is fossils in mountains evidence against a global Flood???

I barely follow what it is saying

Dude, YOU said 'pretty good evidence.'
If most of the video goes over your head, then please explain the logic you used to reach that conclusion.

I see you ignored the following when quoting me:
It also talks about catastrophic plate tectonics, dinosaur graveyards, tsunamis, and "megasequences"

The thing is though that I've had 6 ECT treatments lately so I have trouble following things. The video seemed to make sense to me but while watching I forgot what it meant when talking about "megasequences".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Creationists believe that the Flood covered all of the land. I think fossils being in mountains is good evidence of this.

PRATT.

How is fossils in mountains evidence against a global Flood???

Well, tell me, are the fossils arranged as a jumble of sea and land life mixed together, smashed into piles as one would expect in the globe-churning calamity that is The Flood, or more consistent with sea-life living typical sea lives in typical seas?
I mean, The Flood covered the mountains, but most sea life sinks to the depths when they die. Not the shallows. So even if there are fossils from The Flood, very few of them would show up on mountaintop.

I barely follow what it is saying

Dude, YOU said 'pretty good evidence.'
If most of the video goes over your head, then please explain the logic you used to reach that conclusion.

I see you ignored the following when quoting me:

No, i did not ignore that list of things in the video.
I asked for the logic leading you to say 'pretty good evidence' despite it going over your head.

Still waiting for the logic underlining that conclusion.

Seriously, what was the thought process that goes from 'barely follow' to 'good evidence.'?

The thing is though that I've had 6 ECT treatments lately so I have trouble following things.

...but you still endorse it.... Lots of sympathy for your treatments, but still, it looks to me like you endorse the video because of the conclusion, not the evidence. That kinda shit gets Hovind lauded, and he's a fraud.

 

[DBT]

There is no possibility of a Global Flood as described in Genesis having happened. The time frame as calculated by Bishop Ussher is even more absurd, if something being more absurd is possible.

 

[excreationist]

....Lots of sympathy for your treatments, but still, it looks to me like you endorse the video because of the conclusion, not the evidence. That kinda shit gets Hovind lauded, and he's a fraud.

The computer graphics recreations and specific details of tsunamis and catastrophic plate tectonics made it look like the guy knows what he is talking about. I guess he is just mentioning the things that support the Flood model and ignoring any problems.

 

[bilby]

....Lots of sympathy for your treatments, but still, it looks to me like you endorse the video because of the conclusion, not the evidence. That kinda shit gets Hovind lauded, and he's a fraud.

The computer graphics recreations and specific details of tsunamis and catastrophic plate tectonics made it look like the guy knows what he is talking about. I guess he is just mentioning the things that support the Flood model and ignoring any problems.

The computer graphics recreations and specific details of womp-rat hunts and exhaust port defects made it look like Luke Skywalker really blew up the Death Star. I guess George Lucas was just telling a story, and ignoring the fact that it wasn't technically possible, much less a recounting of real events.

People are very good at telling convincing tales. But even really cool special effects don't imply that these tales have any truth behind them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

....Lots of sympathy for your treatments, but still, it looks to me like you endorse the video because of the conclusion, not the evidence. That kinda shit gets Hovind lauded, and he's a fraud.

The computer graphics recreations and specific details of tsunamis and catastrophic plate tectonics

Specific details? Where did he get these details?
What research could render these necessary results? I mean, what OTHER global flood has been observed to base these details on?

made it look like the guy knows what he is talking about.

And then he throws in a detail like 'sea fossils on mountain tops.' Sorry, flashy graphics don't make bullshit any less bullshit.

 

[excreationist]

Specific details? Where did he get these details?

It talks about plates moving at 5 miles/hr (6:30) and tsunamis that involve several every hour (7:40) and the sediment was in suspension. I'm not sure where he got this.

And then he throws in a detail like 'sea fossils on mountain tops.' Sorry, flashy graphics don't make bullshit any less bullshit.

The details I mean include what I just mentioned...

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not sure where he got this.

So, STILL waiting for why you think this is pretty good evidence. What did you compare it to? If he just pulled this outta his ass, is it good evidence?

And then he throws in a detail like 'sea fossils on mountain tops.' Sorry, flashy graphics don't make bullshit any less bullshit.

The details I mean include what I just mentioned...

If he had a good argument, he would not need to include such a really fucking bad one.

 

[Sarpedon]

In the video it shows there are 4 versions of the genealogies. The version most English Bibles use involve 30's but 3 of the 4 versions involve 130's. So it seems 130's are the correct numbers.

I also am not going to watch the video. I asked what you thought, because you are the one who is here. So please tell me what this shorthand of yours means. Which date do you think is correct? Also, do you think that evidence works by vote? If there are disagreements between versions of a story, it is unreasonable to simply pick the most common one and call it correct. Do you really think like that, and live like that?

The computer graphics recreations and specific details of tsunamis and catastrophic plate tectonics made it look like the guy knows what he is talking about.

Also, please understand the difference between a computer graphic and a computer simulation. The first you can make whatever you like, the second is at least supposed to be based on actual data that is inputted, and if the data is good, can be useful. As you say, it is easy to LOOK like you know what you are talking about if your presentation skills are up to snuff. Anyone who works with computers knows the rule "Shit in, Shit out," which is a way of expressing that the output of a computer is only as good as the data that is put in.

Just think for a minute of what a continent moving at 5 miles an hour would look (and sound, and feel) like. And how would your wooden ark survive "several tsunamis an hour?" We've discussed, at length, the problems of the ark before. It hasn't been mentioned in this thread, probably deliberately in an attempt to make the argument "look" more reasonable, but this is a typical creationist gambit: Ignore the blatantly religious elements in the story, and create a plausible, naturalistic narrative. Present it well, convince a bunch of not very critical people that it is possible. People go away thinking "the flood could have happened, therefore the biblical story is true," ignoring the fact that the 'plausible' version would be utterly lethal to a boat full of livestock. I've noticed this sort of compartmentalizing of religious arguments before. Credible LOOKING arguments exist for nearly every element of every biblical story. Put them all together, and they fall like a house of cards.