Dating the Flood back 650 years

[bilby]

If tectonic plates were moving at 5mph a few thousand years ago, then the Law of Conservation of Energy, combined with their current speed, implies that they released enough heat when slowing down to melt the entire crust, boil the oceans, and kill all life on Earth.

I suspect that this wouldn't have gone entirely unnoticed.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

There are so many things about a global flood that make it impossible that isn't worth entertaining 'plausible scenarios' because there's no such thing. The whole idea violates multiple laws of physics, geology, chemistry and most of reality as we know it.

None of the 'evidence' is remotely conclusive, not to mention even leading down that path unless you are pre-disposed to want it to (and ignore things like physics and history). Also, you'll note that creationists and YECers generally tend to look at the 'evidence' in isolation. There is no consilience.

AKA the curves don't agree.

I'm not going to hash it out for you, but you're welcome to read this thread.

Also this thread.

Seriously, when you have geologists, archaeologists, physicists, and scientists from multiple fields explaining what's so wrong about the flood story, you should really give up.

So read those threads, and come back with any questions (or ask over there).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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...

And what of the fossils that are in bedrocks hundreds of feet beneath the ground surface?

I recommend watching it

Watching it would be a waste of time. There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood. Now there are have been lots of floods in the Earth's history, but none of a single massive event.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

Mountain top fossils were claimed as evidence of flood waters covering the Earth, when such discoveries were brand new. It seemed like such a neat solution and it was until someone asked by the fossil bearing layers were not horizontal, as one would expect a layer of sediment to be.

 

[James Brown]

From the Index of Creationist Claims:

Claim CC364:

Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood. Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 203.


Response:

1. Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
2. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
   • Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
   • In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
   • Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

References:

1. Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The upwardly mobile fossils of Leonardo's living earth. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, pp. 17-44.

 

[excreationist]

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.

There are 4 versions of the genealogies. The one used in normal Bibles has the age as a father at about 30 years old. The other 3 have the age at about 130. Altogether this adds 650 years to the genealogies.

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 3 versions have an earlier origin. I hope you can understand why. Otherwise it means that the 30's were the original and then it became 130's independently three times for 6 people.

 

[bilby]

Humans don't live to 130, much less father children at that age.

And that's still true today, with life expectancy FAR higher than at any other time in history.

Literally everything about this story is so stupid that it cannot possibly have actually happened.

 

[excreationist]

James Brown:

Apparently the flood involved the windows of heaven and fountains of the deep so there is extra water. To get dry land you’d need land lowered and/or raised. If it is going to be raised, the biggest change would involve the ocean floor being raised

 

[excreationist]

Humans don't live to 130, much less father children at that age.

And that's still true today, with life expectancy FAR higher than at any other time in history.

Literally everything about this story is so stupid that it cannot possibly have actually happened.

As you might know in Genesis before the flood it was common for people to live to more than 900.

 

[bilby]

Humans don't live to 130, much less father children at that age.

And that's still true today, with life expectancy FAR higher than at any other time in history.

Literally everything about this story is so stupid that it cannot possibly have actually happened.

As you might know in Genesis before the flood it was common for people to live to more than 900.

And in Star Wars it is common for people to use the force to move objects at a distance; And in Superman it is common for people to be saved from falling by a man who can fly.

But the existence of something in a story isn't the same as its existence in reality.

No historical or archaeological evidence exists that suggests humans have ever lived much more than a century at the absolute most.

The long lifespans described in Genesis are an error, a fiction, an exaggeration, or most likely a combination of these three.

When a book describes the impossible, and is unsupported in its description by independent sources, that tells you that it's make-believe.

One plausible source for these impossible lifespans is that someone got confused between a lunar calendar and a solar one - 900 months is 75 years, which is a fairly unremarkable lifespan for a human being.

 

[Worldtraveller]

James Brown:

Apparently the flood involved the windows of heaven and fountains of the deep so there is extra water. To get dry land you’d need land lowered and/or raised. If it is going to be raised, the biggest change would involve the ocean floor being raised

You'd melt the earth several times over...and where's that "extra water" now?

You didn't even skim the links I gave you, obviously. Why should anyone here watch your video if you won't do the same courtesy and read the actual scientific evidence?

 

[James Brown]

James Brown:

Apparently the flood involved the windows of heaven and fountains of the deep so there is extra water. To get dry land you’d need land lowered and/or raised. If it is going to be raised, the biggest change would involve the ocean floor being raised

Yes, the story in Genesis does mention that. But there's no evidence for it. And enormous oceans of water underground don't solve a problem; they only introduce more problems.

Claim CH420:

The Flood's waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain. Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, pp. 87-98. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Response:

1. The rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or before Adam's time for that matter.
2. Even two miles deep, the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
3. The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

References:

1. Bram, Kurt et al. 1995. The KTB borehole -- Germany's superdeep telescope into the earth's crust. Oilfield Review 7(1): 4-22. http://www.oilfield.slb.com/content/services/resources/oilfieldreview/ors95/jan95/01950422.pdf

Be careful of your method of argument here. The way to provide support for one untested claim is not to introduce another untested claim.

 

[excreationist]

......One plausible source for these impossible lifespans is that someone got confused between a lunar calendar and a solar one - 900 months is 75 years, which is a fairly unremarkable lifespan for a human being.

Genesis 5:15 talks about the age at fatherhood being 65. That would be 5 years old!!!

 

[excreationist]

As far as evidence for the flood goes - I believe in an old earth so I don’t need to prove the flood

 

[Keith&Co.]

As far as evidence for the flood goes - I believe in an old earth so I don’t need to prove the flood

So, what the holy dripping fuck is your reason for calling the video 'good evidence' when you hardly ubderstand it, and don't NEED it to be true?

 

[excreationist]

....So, what the holy dripping fuck is your reason for calling the video 'good evidence' when you hardly ubderstand it, and don't NEED it to be true?

Ok sorry I didn’t think that through

 

[bilby]

......One plausible source for these impossible lifespans is that someone got confused between a lunar calendar and a solar one - 900 months is 75 years, which is a fairly unremarkable lifespan for a human being.

Genesis 5:15 talks about the age at fatherhood being 65. That would be 5 years old!!!

So your argument is that because Genesis makes ridiculous claims, the claims in Genesis are therefore reasonable?

Nobody lives for 900 years. It's possible to father children at 65. It's possible that one of these measures should be 'months', but if so, that doesn't mean that the other should be also; Nor does it's possibility make it likely or true.

Maybe the 900 year lifespans are just exaggeration, or outright lies. Maybe the whole thing is lies, or if we are charitable, fiction.

One thing we can be 100% sure of; It's not all true. Nobody's ever lived more than about 120 years. Ever.

There's never been a global flood. Ever.

Snakes don't talk. And never have.

It's just stories. Make-believe stuff doesn't have to be true, or even realistic.

 

[DBT]

A world wide flood as described in Genesis goes hand in hand with bible cosmology, a flat earth not a lot bigger than the Middle East, as people believed at the time, with a dome and God in His Heaven with His Angels residing above.

 

[excreationist]

....So your argument is that because Genesis makes ridiculous claims, the claims in Genesis are therefore reasonable?

I'm saying that I disagree that a "plausible" source for the ages is from a lunar calendar.

Nobody lives for 900 years. It's possible to father children at 65. It's possible that one of these measures should be 'months', but if so, that doesn't mean that the other should be also; Nor does it's possibility make it likely or true.

Ok let's say that he was 65 YEARS old when he was a father:
Genesis 5:15-17:
"When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died."

So you are ok with 65 being literal years and you'd say the 830 and 895 involve months... "After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years" - if that is months, that means he lived 70 more years after the birth of Jared.

Maybe the 900 year lifespans are just exaggeration, or outright lies. Maybe the whole thing is lies, or if we are charitable, fiction.

I think the ages were just invented. I mean after all I believe the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are invented.
https://uncensored-christmas.sky-walker.net/genealogies/
Also check out this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
The Bible is similar but it a bit more realistic.

One thing we can be 100% sure of; It's not all true. Nobody's ever lived more than about 120 years. Ever.

There's never been a global flood. Ever.

Snakes don't talk. And never have.

It's just stories. Make-believe stuff doesn't have to be true, or even realistic.

ok

 

[Sarpedon]

Ok, I think other people have addressed the bonkers age assumption sufficiently, so I don't have to.

And since excreationist refuses to address the compartmentalization of his argument, I'll let that stand as it is.

However, I'd like to point out another problem with this dating, that reveals another dishonest tactic used by creationists (and our so called excreationist). By dating the flood at 3000 BC, this revised date places it pre-pyramids, which evades many (but not all) the awkward objections to having the flood drown the pyramid builders, who must then be replaced by new people who, suspiciously have the exact same culture. However, this gambit is nullified by the fact that Ancient Egypt is a lot older than the pyramids, and the revised chronology would put the flood smack in the middle of the First Dynasty. The dishonest tactic here is the fact that the people who are peddling these lies assume that their target audience is to ignorant to know when the First Dynasty was, who Narmer was, and that Egypt had a developed system of writing centuries before the pyramids, and even before the date given here. So the problem of Egypt doesn't go away: only the ignorant will think it does.

Even if you claim that the dates of the First Dynasty are incorrect, and Narmer came after the flood, you still have the same problem: Even though no detailed records of the Predynastic period of Egypt exist, there was obviously an advanced and populous culture there, which only lacked the political unity that would allow it to develop more fully later. And you still have Sumeria to think about. But again, no problem for the ignorant.