Breaking News from Genesis 1:9

[gipper]

When it does this every roughly 13,000 years, it causes a geomagnetic pole reversal on earth, resulting in a biblical cataclysm.

Total bullshit. Hilarious, too.

Yes of course you know it’s bullshit because you’re so smart, yet you know nothing about the subject.

 

[Wuwei]

We already discussed this, so will just post the link -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. It shows young Earth. I don't think you understood what they did from what you claim today.

Yes we discussed that, and it ended with you making personal attacks.
Here is an excerpt of the link you cited.
"The University of California scientists, of course, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument."

Here is the back story. The UC scientists were measuring the background of their instrument for calibration purposes using diamonds. The creationists used the UC data and purposefully misinterpreted the background as actual data.
I will believe the UC scientists over creationists.

What you claim now is a lie.

Oops. Nope, just a typo. I meant to type 80 to 100 thousand years old. I had too many zeros. The 80 - 100 numbers came from later creationists "analyzing" background data from newer MS instruments .

RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.

You are right in a narrow sense, but that statement is quite vacuous. You are referring to a time when the age of the universe was not known. Almost everyone was a young earther at that time. Hubble and radiological dating became the science that supplanted those beliefs. As you know a large majority of scientists no longer believe the young earth theory.

The rest of your post about Darwin is likewise vacuous.
.

 

[alang1216]

My main point was that there is no gap in history. Also that Polycarp was a quartodeciman, Since the Bible clearly teaches Jesus observed the last supper on passover night, it is clear Polycarp followed apostolic teachings. Passover was on Nisan 14. You ignore this.

I didn't ignore it but I don't see it as particularly relevant. There were many views on Christianity in the early church. Most seem much bigger than this one.

Also you ignored the manuscript evidence I posted. The oldest ms. of the book of John dates about 150 CE which is about 50 years after John wrote his gospel account, his 3 letters and the book of Revelation.

You must know that we don't know who wrote the Gospels. They never say and only later did they become attributed to apostles or disciples of apostles. There are plenty of texts that claim an apostolic source that are clearly false and never made it into the cannon.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes of course you know it’s bullshit because you’re so smart, yet you know nothing about the subject.

Actually, i have read a lot about geology and tectonics, from good sources. You know LESS than nothing about it. You know nothing factual, and the things you do know are all wrong. You actually have net negative knowledge on the subject.

 

[james bond]

Yes we discussed that, and it ended with you making personal attacks.
Here is an excerpt of the link you cited.
"The University of California scientists, of course, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument."

Here is the back story. The UC scientists were measuring the background of their instrument for calibration purposes using diamonds. The creationists used the UC data and purposefully misinterpreted the background as actual data.
I will believe the UC scientists over creationists.

So butthurt if you remember what I called you. It probably was you are wrong or you are lying.

You are quote mining and taking things out of context Their conclusion was:
"Yet this begs the question as to why then did the Precambrian graphite contain on average more carbon-14 to yield younger ages than the diamonds? And why did the diamonds have such different carbon-14 contents to yield different apparent radiocarbon “ages”? Because the same instrument was used to analyze all the diamonds and the graphite, the results should surely have all been affected by the same “machine background.” Rather, these results may further confirm the conclusions of the RATE radiocarbon project that natural diamonds, which are related to the earth’s early history, show evidence of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young."

What you claim now is a lie.

Oops. Nope, just a typo. I meant to type 80 to 100 thousand years old. I had too many zeros. The 80 - 100 numbers came from later creationists "analyzing" background data from newer MS instruments .

Haha. I'm not a mind reader.

RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.

You are right in a narrow sense, but that statement is quite vacuous. You are referring to a time when the age of the universe was not known. Almost everyone was a young earther at that time. Hubble and radiological dating became the science that supplanted those beliefs. As you know a large majority of scientists no longer believe the young earth theory.

The rest of your post about Darwin is likewise vacuous.

RATE are top creation scientists while you're just a technician with no college degree.

 

[gipper]

Yes of course you know it’s bullshit because you’re so smart, yet you know nothing about the subject.

Actually, i have read a lot about geology and tectonics, from good sources. You know LESS than nothing about it. You know nothing factual, and the things you do know are all wrong. You actually have net negative knowledge on the subject.

Geology. Really? Then you should know something about theories and all the evidence of pole shifts.

 

[ding]

I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?

It's in Genesis 1:9. The topic of the OP. I guess you missed that key point. It's why you don't discuss things like other believers do. We've had newer member Newtonian recently.

Again, I believe it is an allegorical account. I don't read it literally like you. But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth. Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.

Yes, I get what you said, but where is your source for these explanations of 1500 gigatons? Is it tied to the waterworld? Where are those links that state 1500 gigatons of ice?

Ken is a good guy. I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.

He may be a good guy, but you don't support nor listen to anything he says. He has a museum and tourist attraction now. Don't you think he got some help from God to finally be able to put it together with use of atheist scientist Bill Nye?

To the contrary, what upsets you about a 6,000 years old Earth? Most think the old Earth creationists are wrong and don't have leg to stand on, but they have their sources. You don't.

Nobody can argue against someone who take bits and pieces of science and cobbles their own wacky theories. They won't be able to present anything of interest. We have a place for that as pseudoscience.

You didn't answer my question. Where do YOU believe the water came from to cover the whole earth? Let's hear your scientific explanation.

The source for the 1500 gigatons of ice is from the research team of scientists that discovered the crater. The estimate is from the size of the crater and the energy required to create the crater and the amount of ice that would have vaporized. 1500 gigatons of TNT will vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice. It's simple math. You can do it yourself.

What does Ken Ham have to do with this anyway? I'm not having a conversation with Ken Ham. But if you want to get Ken Ham into this conversation I am all for that. Because I suspect he would appreciate scientific confirmation of the account of the flood in Genesis.

I'm pretty sure you are in the minority for your belief that the earth and universe are 6000 years old. You do believe God created the universe, right? How old do you believe that is?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

he source for the 1500 gigatons of ice is from the research team of scientists that discovered the crater.

Oops, there's the shameless lie again.

Poor, poor ding.

 

[ding]

These accounts were told as stories or fables to make them easier to remember and pass down. That’s how they did it 10,000 years ago. You would think that people today would be intelligent enough to understand this concept but apparently not.

I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet. Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study. The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.

A few links on the many flood accounts:

Noah’s Faith Condemns the World — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Anthropologists have collected as many as 270 flood legends from nearly all tribes and nations. “The flood story is found throughout the world,” says scholar Claus Westermann. “Like the creation narrative, it is part of our basic cultural heritage. It is truly astonishing: everywhere on earth we find stories of a great primeval flood.” The explanation? Says expositor Enrico Galbiati: “The insistent presence of a flood tradition in different and widely separated peoples is a sign of the historical reality of the fact that lies at the base of such traditions.”

From our Bible dictionary:

Deluge — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1982."

A Whole World Destroyed! — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"[Chart on page 4]


(For fully formatted text, see publication)


Flood Legends Worldwide


Country Correspondencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Greece 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Rome 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Lithuania 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Assyria 9 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Tanzania 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

Lithuania 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Assyria 9 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Tanzania 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


India - Hindu 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


New Zealand - Maori 5 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Micronesia 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Washington U.S.A. - Yakima 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Mississippi U.S.A. - Choctaw 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Mexico - Michoacan 5 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


South America - Quechua 4 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Bolivia - Chiriguano 5 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Guyana - Arawak 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

1: God angered by wickedness


2: Destruction by a flood


3: Ordered by God


4: Divine warning given


5: Few of mankind survive


6: Saved in a vessel


7: Animals saved


8: Bird or other creature sent out


9: Finally comes to rest on a mountain


10: Sacrifice offered"

I'm not dating them. I believe the date of the event precedes them all and allegorical accounts were passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years so dating when they were recorded is meaningless.

 

[ding]

he source for the 1500 gigatons of ice is from the research team of scientists that discovered the crater.

Oops, there's the shameless lie again.

Poor, poor ding.

The research team of scientists say otherwise.

I can tell how much this bothers you though. It really rocks your belief system that the flood account in Genesis has a scientific explanation.

You aren't really bothered by JB's young earth explanation, but this one really rocks you.

 

[ding]

Where's ding? I'm still waiting how he explains Noah and still think he just uses the Bible to back up his fallacious weird science.

Does he support Ken Ham and what he has built?

The other weird part is he seems to know nothing about the prophecies. I wouldn't call him a Catholic as it isn't what he is. Maybe he's a deist. I think that's a close description of him with his belief in nature. What do others think?

I still work, dude. Take it easy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, of the only 3 posts in the last week of ding's I have taken him off ignore to read -- without any idea what the content would be -- all contained the same, debunked, shameless lie. I showed him a little while back how his own article showed him he was lying when telling this lie, and I predicted he would continue to repeat the lie ad nauseum anyway, ESPECIALLY once he realized he got exposed and embarrassed.

I must be Miss Cleo. Or Nostradamus.

 

[Hollie]

I specifically mentioned diamonds and zirconium because they don't crumble and the long-lived isotopes trapped inside those minerals are protected from contamination. They found no C-14 on the outside of the diamonds that were within the instrument error.

We already discussed this, so will just post the link -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. It shows young Earth. I don't think you understood what they did from what you claim today.

A lie? RATE scientists are the ones who think they established that diamonds presumably are 80 to 1000 thousand years old. You are the one who gave me the references.

What you claim now is a lie.

RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE

I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.

RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.

Instead, you have wrong and racist pseudoscientist Darwin and his family (at least father and cousin). What do you call the evolutionist group who tried to claim millions and then billions of years up to 3 billion years and it still wasn't good enough for Darwin? They had to wait until 1956 for their lies to be good enough. They had to make the facts fit their Darwin's lie. Darwin was in the ground by then. I would call that being a zealot to make the facts fit the hypothesis.

It’s comical when creationist hacks such as the ICR pretend to do research.

The AIG RATE fiasco with Andrew Snelling.

Andrew A. Snelling is an Australian geologist and young-Earth creationist. He is also the first, only, and hopefully last, editor of the Answers Research Journal.[1] He is the founder of the Journal of Creation and author of the two-volume Earth's Catastrophic Past — 1100 pages of creationist twaddle.

Andrew Snelling

Andrew A. Snelling is an Australian geologist and young-Earth creationist. He is the "Director of Research" at Answers in Genesis and also the first, only, and hopefully last, editor of the Answers Research Journal.[1][note 1] He is the founder of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, now...

rationalwiki.org

 

[ding]

So, of the only 3 posts in the last week of ding's I have taken him off ignore to read -- without any idea what the content would be -- all contained the same, debunked, shameless lie. I showed him a little while back how his own article showed him he was lying when telling this lie, and I predicted he would continue to repeat the lie ad nauseum anyway, ESPECIALLY once he realized he got exposed and embarrassed.

I must be Miss Cleo. Or Nostradamus.

You didn’t but that’s ok. I know you need to believe it.

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

 

[Wuwei]

So butthurt if you remember what I called you. It probably was you are wrong or you are lying.

I think it was because I was pressing you that your creation scientists were claiming diamonds were 50,000 years or older and you claim 6,000 years. You guys are an order of magnitude apart. You can't have it both ways.

You are quote mining and taking things out of context Their conclusion was:

It was in my context that I just mentioned. You never addressed my point that you are an order of magnitude off.

As far as coal see this site.

Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

Short Description of page

www.talkorigins.org

They give a number of reasons why coal has a higher level of C-14. I have no opinion on that paper except that the subject is still open for research and there is no reason to think that the measurements validate a young earth.
.

 

[james bond]

You didn't answer my question. Where do YOU believe the water came from to cover the whole earth? Let's hear your scientific explanation.

Not scientific explanation. With the global flood, it is a Biblical explanation; And science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book. Yours is an obvious question to any Christian. I thought I answered your satirical (?) question with the bringing up Noah as well as Ken Ham. The answer is in the Bible so any Christian would know that. Ken Ham has Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum. He teaches what is taught in the Bible.

I said you were a deist b/c you do not even mention Noah and his family in your posts. There really is no reason for you to ask me where the water came from. Why ask something which you already know the answer to? It came from above and below. First, we had the rain for 40 days and 40 nights and the rest came up through the Fountains of the Deep. There was earthquake below the sea floor and the magma and the plate tectonics moved and the oceans in the core of Earth came rising up. The rock below came rising up like monoliths. It raised our land of Pangea, the supercontinent. What else happened due to the fountains of the deep? The continents split into 7 and formed our seven continents. It raised our mountains higher like the Himalayas and the valleys it formed had water gush into them. The proof is the difficulty of humans to reach the tops of our highest peaks as well as dive deep into our deepest oceans. There is no scientific explanation for that, is there? Comets and meteors from billions of years ago don't do that.

 

[gipper]

he source for the 1500 gigatons of ice is from the research team of scientists that discovered the crater.

Oops, there's the shameless lie again.

Poor, poor ding.

Okay Mr Geologist, let’s see if we can get you to understand and accept this theory.

How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude? How does science explain ancient forests perfectly preserved at latitudes too cold for them to exist? Or, how does science explain the evidence of coral reefs that cross cross the planet in numerous babut at depths and latitudes where there couldn’t have survived?

Answer:
Only a pole shift – a displacement of the entire crust of the earth – explains how one region gets much warmer and another gets much colder at the same time. This is what Ivan Sanderson concluded in “Riddle of the Frozen Giants,” in the Saturday Evening Post in which he suggested that “the part of the earth where their corpses are found today was somewhere else in warmer latitudes at the time of their death.”[41] Yet they were quickly frozen, with eyeballs and skin and stomach contents frozen intact and remained frozen ever since. Hmmmm.

Pg. 42 Pole Shift: Evidence Will Not Be Silenced, by David Montaigne.

Compelling theory, no?

 

[beautress]

So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
This should be in the conspiracy section

Mysteries of God are no conspiracy, dahlin'.

 

[TNHarley]

So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
This should be in the conspiracy section

Mysteries of God are no conspiracy, dahlin'.

Why would god do a wordlwide flood for ounishment of humans before humans existed?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?

Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.

"Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.