Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,522
- 940
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood is true?
I see you're one of few words, few thoughts and less culture.I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.A very encompassing definition. Nice. Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons. Quite a mixed bag.A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.
It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science. I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why. However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha. To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.
Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good. This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots. He gave us free will. The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin. One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear. God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless. If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most. This is much more important than doing good. God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.
It’s not surprising that religion (Christianity), tends to get inserted into science discussions. Christianity is, afterall, a proselytizing religion. It’s pretty typical that religo’s will try and spackle their gods into every nook and cranny that are science matters. Interestingly, outside of Christian and Moslem fundamentalism, there doesn’t exist an organized anti-science movement.
Babble.
Oh, and Noah's pleasure cruise was not an actual event. However, the gods really can pull a rabbit out of a hat.
- Thread starter
- #403
Yeah, I could never understand that either. Seems fishy to me.Why would I dismiss it?I can tell you a story that people here may believe that I heard about the coronavirus and Italy. Wonder if ding can dismiss it?
It's very important to understand what happened in Italy. Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for Wuhan coronavirus.
I can even give you a link if you want haha.
another angle can be found comparing the differences between South Korea and Italy. .
Stick with this story. So, you would accept a story like this?
You know, James, I really don't think I will ever understand you. I don't doubt for a moment that the Noahic Flood was an actual historical event, that it was a worldwide event, but I don't know why it could not have happened due to an asteroid strike. Why would the physical cause have any bearing on its historicity or God's determination? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
Your "flash freezing" meme appears to have come from Answers in Genesis. For a more detailed and factual account, try here: Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe?The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour. Autopsies indicate cause of death was drowning. Those two findings can only be harmonized if supercooled water was involved (very cold water with nothing to base crystalization on). Its late and I am researching the above math - feel free to research the point you are trying to make - I'll look forward to your links!How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity. So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!
My next post will be researching the minimal angle of glacial flow:
"As for instant freezing, as claimed by Ted Holden, there is no evidence of that. The Berezovka mammoth shows evidence of having been buried in a landslide, the cold mud acting as preservative and the underlying permafrost completing the process by freezing the carcass. "
That makes no sense Hollie. The mammoth would have rotted in that scenario.
Well, we agree on that. However, the evidence in the arctic permafrost is for a rapid lowering of the temperature. I'm not sure a meteorite strike would accomplish that. A near miss by a water-laden comet seems more likely.
Of course, the comet or asteroid could have broken up and the crater ding is posting about may have been from a piece of the comet (or asteroid). I think that the accretion of water by planet earth was usually gradual - but I also think that there could have been condensation catastrophes.
Either way, I think (personal opinion) that the waters the earth was out of and in the midst of were perturbed rotationally in some way so as to initiate the catastrophic falling of the last accretion belts of water - and the Beresovka mammoth evidence points to supercooled water.
Those who deny the flood rarely refer to how earth did accrete its water.
Of course, the comet or asteroid could have broken up and the crater ding is posting about may have been from a piece of the comet (or asteroid). I think that the accretion of water by planet earth was usually gradual - but I also think that there could have been condensation catastrophes.
Either way, I think (personal opinion) that the waters the earth was out of and in the midst of were perturbed rotationally in some way so as to initiate the catastrophic falling of the last accretion belts of water - and the Beresovka mammoth evidence points to supercooled water.
Those who deny the flood rarely refer to how earth did accrete its water.
Though not totally accurate, this link mentions some details about the Beresovka Mammoth:
Excerpt:
"One theory to explain this was that somehow there had been a sudden, deadly drop in temperature. If the temperature dropped fast enough and low enough, it could freeze the carcass and stop the digestive process, leaving the food intact.
There are problems with this theory, however. First, it takes time to freeze an animal that big. A side of beef takes thirty minutes to freeze at a temperature of -40° F. The mammoth was massive, still warm, had its internal organs, and was covered with a woolly hide that would have insulated it. It is estimated that in order to freeze in a half hour, the temperature would have had to be below -150° F. If it took much longer than half an hour, the stomach contents would have been digested.
Adding to the complications, the temperature would have had to drop quite suddenly. Since the mammoth was eating buttercups when it died, we know that it had to be in the late summer or early autumn. It may have been cold then, but it was still mild enough for there to be buttercups. Suddenly – within a matter of hours at most – the temperature would have had to plummet fifty or more degrees, possibly more than 100 degrees. We don’t know of any mechanism that could cause that"
The most important accurate part of this link is how long it would have taken to freeze that mammoth so that its flesh was still edible. While the link only mentions buttercups, there were actually many plant species found in that mammoth's stomach and mouth indicating the climate at its death - which has never been the climate there since then - though the current global warming may change that.
Extremely important is that the evidence is consistent with a lowering of the temperature to below -150 degrees F for 30 minutes. The authors doubt this because they were not aware of a mechanism that would cause that.
The article does not mention results of an autopsy which revealed the cause of death was drowning. Normally water is not liquid at -150 degrees F. But most who are aware of the actual evidence fail to note supercooled water - and also are not aware of how such supercooled water could have been rotating around the earth. Now, this is just a personal theory of mine - but supercooled water is not theory - it is fact. I will explain further in my next post:
Excerpt:
"One theory to explain this was that somehow there had been a sudden, deadly drop in temperature. If the temperature dropped fast enough and low enough, it could freeze the carcass and stop the digestive process, leaving the food intact.
There are problems with this theory, however. First, it takes time to freeze an animal that big. A side of beef takes thirty minutes to freeze at a temperature of -40° F. The mammoth was massive, still warm, had its internal organs, and was covered with a woolly hide that would have insulated it. It is estimated that in order to freeze in a half hour, the temperature would have had to be below -150° F. If it took much longer than half an hour, the stomach contents would have been digested.
Adding to the complications, the temperature would have had to drop quite suddenly. Since the mammoth was eating buttercups when it died, we know that it had to be in the late summer or early autumn. It may have been cold then, but it was still mild enough for there to be buttercups. Suddenly – within a matter of hours at most – the temperature would have had to plummet fifty or more degrees, possibly more than 100 degrees. We don’t know of any mechanism that could cause that"
The most important accurate part of this link is how long it would have taken to freeze that mammoth so that its flesh was still edible. While the link only mentions buttercups, there were actually many plant species found in that mammoth's stomach and mouth indicating the climate at its death - which has never been the climate there since then - though the current global warming may change that.
Extremely important is that the evidence is consistent with a lowering of the temperature to below -150 degrees F for 30 minutes. The authors doubt this because they were not aware of a mechanism that would cause that.
The article does not mention results of an autopsy which revealed the cause of death was drowning. Normally water is not liquid at -150 degrees F. But most who are aware of the actual evidence fail to note supercooled water - and also are not aware of how such supercooled water could have been rotating around the earth. Now, this is just a personal theory of mine - but supercooled water is not theory - it is fact. I will explain further in my next post:
Supercooled water - some of the evidence:
www.discovermagazine.com
Excerpts:
"Despite its ubiquity on this planet (and in our bodies, and in the universe), water’s a pretty weird substance. It’s corrosive, its solid form floats on its liquid form, it's got super high surface tension — and apparently, if it gets cold enough fast enough, it might have two different kinds of liquid form, with a phase transition (i.e., the threshold between liquid water and supercooled water) somewhere around 228 kelvin (-49° F). But, for now, that's just a theory. ....
"The problem is, it’s tough to get enough of this supercooled liquid water together to examine it with any precision. In fact, scientists refer to liquid water below 232 K (-42° F) as a “no-man’s land,” because it’s so hard to get there. But they now have a way to measure “bulk liquid water” at these incredibly low temperatures, according to a paper from this week’s Nature ....
"A “droplet dispenser” shoots tiny drops of water out into a vacuum, which cools the water almost immediately through evaporation. But, crucially, enough liquid water remains in some of the droplets for the scientists to study. Perpendicular to the beam of water drops is an X-ray laser shooting extremely brief pulses, just 50 femtoseconds long (i.e., 50 quadrillionths of a second). By studying the diffraction pattern that results when one of these pulses encounters a droplet of supercooled water, the scientists can probe the structural makeup of the droplets. So far, they’ve proven that liquid water as cold as 227 K (-51° F) does remain stable long enough for this method to work, meaning they’ve reliably entered into no-man’s land. And their early observations indicate that water's structure does change a little at ultracold temperatures, appearing more orderly, but still liquid. What else they'll discover in no-man’s land — and how it’ll help us better understand (and exploit) one of the universe’s most abundant materials — we’ll have to wait and see."
Notice, however, that this is not -150 F but c. -50 F. This is not inconsistent with the evidence however. Since the mammoth died from drowning, the water would have entered the internal parts of the mammoth - so -150 would not be neccesary - -50 supercooled water could produce the quick freezing of the mammoth.
More on supercooled water in my next post:
The Freaky Physics of Supercooled Water
The Freaky Physics of Supercooled Water
www.discovermagazine.com
Excerpts:
"Despite its ubiquity on this planet (and in our bodies, and in the universe), water’s a pretty weird substance. It’s corrosive, its solid form floats on its liquid form, it's got super high surface tension — and apparently, if it gets cold enough fast enough, it might have two different kinds of liquid form, with a phase transition (i.e., the threshold between liquid water and supercooled water) somewhere around 228 kelvin (-49° F). But, for now, that's just a theory. ....
"The problem is, it’s tough to get enough of this supercooled liquid water together to examine it with any precision. In fact, scientists refer to liquid water below 232 K (-42° F) as a “no-man’s land,” because it’s so hard to get there. But they now have a way to measure “bulk liquid water” at these incredibly low temperatures, according to a paper from this week’s Nature ....
"A “droplet dispenser” shoots tiny drops of water out into a vacuum, which cools the water almost immediately through evaporation. But, crucially, enough liquid water remains in some of the droplets for the scientists to study. Perpendicular to the beam of water drops is an X-ray laser shooting extremely brief pulses, just 50 femtoseconds long (i.e., 50 quadrillionths of a second). By studying the diffraction pattern that results when one of these pulses encounters a droplet of supercooled water, the scientists can probe the structural makeup of the droplets. So far, they’ve proven that liquid water as cold as 227 K (-51° F) does remain stable long enough for this method to work, meaning they’ve reliably entered into no-man’s land. And their early observations indicate that water's structure does change a little at ultracold temperatures, appearing more orderly, but still liquid. What else they'll discover in no-man’s land — and how it’ll help us better understand (and exploit) one of the universe’s most abundant materials — we’ll have to wait and see."
Notice, however, that this is not -150 F but c. -50 F. This is not inconsistent with the evidence however. Since the mammoth died from drowning, the water would have entered the internal parts of the mammoth - so -150 would not be neccesary - -50 supercooled water could produce the quick freezing of the mammoth.
More on supercooled water in my next post:
Excerpts:
"Supercooling, a state where liquids do not solidify even below their normal freezing point, still puzzles scientists today. A good example of this phenomenon is found everyday in meteorology: clouds in high altitude are an accumulation of supercooled droplets of water below their freezing point....
"Supercooled liquids are trapped in a metastable state even well below their freezing point, which can only be achieved in liquids that do not contain seeds that may trigger crystallization. Clouds at high altitude are a good example for this: they contain tiny droplets of water that, in the absence of seed crystals do not form ice despite the low temperatures. In everyday life, though, there is usually some crystalline impurity in contact with the liquid that will trigger the crystallization process, and therefore the freezing. ....
"Supercooling was discovered already in 1724 by Fahrenheit, ....
"Models propose that a significant fraction of the atoms in liquids arrange in five-fold coordinated clusters. To form a crystal however, one needs a structure that can be repeated periodically, filling the entire space. This is not possible with five-fold coordinated clusters. In the two-dimensional analogue, a plane cannot be filled by pentagons only, whereas triangles, rectangles or hexagons can fill a plane perfectly. In this example, pentagons are an obstacle to crystallization."
Bottom line, my personal theory is that there were accretion belts of supercooled water c. -50 F or lower rotating around the earth until the flood. It is very cold in outer space (another subject for research - but not tonight for me!). The reason these belts did not freeze solid is the lack of dust for the water to crystallize. Because a huge mass of water fell at the flood, it is possible that some of this remained liguid while drowning the Beresovka mammoth and causing the quick freezing.
Amazing how discoveries as recent as 1724 explain things we never knew before!
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,802
- 170
I don't doubt for a moment that the Noahic Flood was an actual historical event, that it was a worldwide event, but I don't know why it could not have happened due to an asteroid strike.
An asteroid strike may not be as easy to ascertain as was thought. It could be a volcanic eruption. Which asteroid strike are you referring to?
I don't follow people who get misled like ding. He said, "I am never going to believe the earth and universe are 6000 years old. I am never going to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis were written to be read literally." He can be discarded.
"The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...That's not what Christians believe any way. The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus. That goes back 6,000 years. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
answersingenesis.org
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 76,683
- 52,860
- 2,645
I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old. The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe."The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...That's not what Christians believe any way. The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus. That goes back 6,000 years. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
Well I'm sorry, but there's a whole big world outside just your personal circle. But possibly you missed when I said "SUPER" Christians, and those are the ones that believe every singe last word in the Bible, and to take it LITERALLY, because God is perfect, and God inspired the words in the Bible, therefore EVERYTHING in the Bible is true, and I just posted a link that shows how the young earthers come to their conclusions. You should have looked at it.I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old. The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe."The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...That's not what Christians believe any way. The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus. That goes back 6,000 years. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
And, I identify as a Christian, but I think the young earthers are all nutso, but then, I'm not a "SUPER" Christian. I don't go around Bible thumping and proselytizing to everyone.
Last edited:
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 76,683
- 52,860
- 2,645
The only Christians you know are the ones you made up.Well I'm sorry, but there's a whole big world outside just your personal circle. But possibly you missed when I said "SUPER" Christians, and those are the ones that believe every singe last word in the Bible, and to take it LITERALLY, because God is perfect, and God inspired the words in the Bible, therefore EVERYTHING in the Bible is true, and I just posted a link that shows how the young earthers come to their conclusions. You should have looked at it.I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old. The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe."The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...That's not what Christians believe any way. The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus. That goes back 6,000 years. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
And, I identify as a Christian, but I think the young earthers are all nutso, but then, I'm not a "SUPER" Christian. I don't go around Bible thumping and proselytizing to everyone.
I have no reason to believe that. What makes no sense is your claim that a frozen carcass would rot.Your "flash freezing" meme appears to have come from Answers in Genesis. For a more detailed and factual account, try here: Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe?The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour. Autopsies indicate cause of death was drowning. Those two findings can only be harmonized if supercooled water was involved (very cold water with nothing to base crystalization on). Its late and I am researching the above math - feel free to research the point you are trying to make - I'll look forward to your links!How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity. So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!
My next post will be researching the minimal angle of glacial flow:
"As for instant freezing, as claimed by Ted Holden, there is no evidence of that. The Berezovka mammoth shows evidence of having been buried in a landslide, the cold mud acting as preservative and the underlying permafrost completing the process by freezing the carcass. "
That makes no sense Hollie. The mammoth would have rotted in that scenario.
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 839
- 130
There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old. The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe."The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...That's not what Christians believe any way. The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus. That goes back 6,000 years. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 839
- 130
The sedimentation demonstrates the realities concerning the FLOOD...
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 76,683
- 52,860
- 2,645
I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old. The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe."The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...That's not what Christians believe any way. The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus. That goes back 6,000 years. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true. The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend. All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals. With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.
luchitociencia
VIP Member
- Nov 10, 2019
- 1,390
- 280
- 80
The mabul (Hebrew word which means "devastation" and is applied as "devastation for cause of water") happened when there was solely one continent on earth. (Pangaea).Though not totally accurate, this link mentions some details about the Beresovka Mammoth:
Excerpt:
"One theory to explain this was that somehow there had been a sudden, deadly drop in temperature. If the temperature dropped fast enough and low enough, it could freeze the carcass and stop the digestive process, leaving the food intact.
There are problems with this theory, however. First, it takes time to freeze an animal that big. A side of beef takes thirty minutes to freeze at a temperature of -40° F. The mammoth was massive, still warm, had its internal organs, and was covered with a woolly hide that would have insulated it. It is estimated that in order to freeze in a half hour, the temperature would have had to be below -150° F. If it took much longer than half an hour, the stomach contents would have been digested.
Adding to the complications, the temperature would have had to drop quite suddenly. Since the mammoth was eating buttercups when it died, we know that it had to be in the late summer or early autumn. It may have been cold then, but it was still mild enough for there to be buttercups. Suddenly – within a matter of hours at most – the temperature would have had to plummet fifty or more degrees, possibly more than 100 degrees. We don’t know of any mechanism that could cause that"
The most important accurate part of this link is how long it would have taken to freeze that mammoth so that its flesh was still edible. While the link only mentions buttercups, there were actually many plant species found in that mammoth's stomach and mouth indicating the climate at its death - which has never been the climate there since then - though the current global warming may change that.
Extremely important is that the evidence is consistent with a lowering of the temperature to below -150 degrees F for 30 minutes. The authors doubt this because they were not aware of a mechanism that would cause that.
The article does not mention results of an autopsy which revealed the cause of death was drowning. Normally water is not liquid at -150 degrees F. But most who are aware of the actual evidence fail to note supercooled water - and also are not aware of how such supercooled water could have been rotating around the earth. Now, this is just a personal theory of mine - but supercooled water is not theory - it is fact. I will explain further in my next post:
No current mountains existed yet. Mountains were formed later on when the sole continent divided itself three generations after Noah, in the times of Peleg, who's name means "division".
The earth suffered another up side down turn in times of Moses , and ancient testimonies relate (thanks to scripture bein already in use) the change from Sun rising on West and setting on East to later rising up on the East and setting down on the West.
Scientists who work hard to discredit the biblical narration are trying to make you believe that the continents separated millions of years ago, but the evidence in favor of the bible and other ancient records, like the mammoth showed in the messages above, is absolute and without question.
Sooner or later scientists will recognize the veracity of the biblical narration with respect to the Mabul, they will never answer the mammoth evidence with a different explanation. Never. And this is final.
Period.
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 839
- 130
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe that the earth is likely 6 to 10 thousand years old. Time has no meaning without GOD and the only reality for time is that it measures our passing... And yes, even Jesus spoke of Noah.I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old. The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe."The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...That's not what Christians believe any way. The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus. That goes back 6,000 years. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true. The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend. All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals. With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.
There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old. The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe."The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...That's not what Christians believe any way. The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus. That goes back 6,000 years. Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
Unfortunately, it speaks to willful ignorance for growing numbers of "bible believing" christians to believe in the notion of a 6,000 year old planet. Such nonsense is a true break from reality.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 155
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 184
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 341
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 70
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 409
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-