The Flood is biblical event!

[PetriFB]

Jari Iivanainen's article:

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theflood.html


Certain people who believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe that the Flood had ever taken place have often regarded the Flood as a mere legend.

However, it is good to ask whether the Flood really did take place. If we were to make practical observations of the ground and the fossils found therein, and traditional folklore, they would refer quite often to the Flood. These indicate that a large mass destruction had taken place in the immediate past. The following passages will examine these different sources of information, which refer to the Flood.

The Mass Graves of Animals

- It has been estimated that in the Karroo region of South-Africa there would be about 800 billions of skeletal remains of vertebrates (Robert Broom's article in the Science newspaper of January, in the year 1959). This large grave find indicates that it cannot be a question of any natural event. The animals must have been buried very quickly. Generally, this kind of burial is explained in the best way by mass destruction such as the Flood, which can also accumulate strata on animals instantaneously.

- One special matter is the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia, because it can include millions of tons of animals’ bones. Significantly, several of these animals have been large mammals, which would not get along in cold conditions and they themselves could not be buried in any way, or be put into the ground. The next description, which is from the book "Maailman Luonto”, discusses this matter. It indicates how these large animals were found deep in the underground together with different kinds of vegetation:

... Of particular interest here is the fact that the permafrost in Alaska and in Siberia can include noticeable amounts of bones and meat, and half-rotted vegetation and other remains of the organism world. In some places, these form a notable part of the whole soil. A considerable part of the remains is from large animals such as from hairy rhinoceroses, giant lions, beavers, buffaloes, musk, oxen, mammoths, and hairy elephants, which have become extinct. That is why it is clear that the climate of Alaska was much warmer before it became frozen.

- An indication of the large mass graves are also the remains of rhinoceroses, camels, wild-boars and innumerable other animals in Agate Spring of Nebraska. According to the experts on this area, over 9000 remains of these large sized animals have been buried here.

- From Odessa of Russia, remains of animals were excavated in 1845 and bones belonging to more than 100 bears and of horses, boars, mammoths, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, deer, wolves, hyenas, different insect eaters, rodents, otters, pine-martens and foxes were found. These were upside down with different plant remains and birds, and even with fishes (!). This presentation of fishes among these country animals seems to be a clear reference to the Flood.

- In Palermo, Italy, mounds with a large quantity of hippo’s bones were found. As there are also young hippos' bones among the finds, they did not die in natural circumstances. The presence of these young hippos refers clearly to the Flood.

- Cave finds in Yorkshire in England, in China, in the east coast of USA and in Alaska, where a large number of skeletal remains of herbivores and carnivores were discovered. In Yorkshire, England skeletal remains of elephants, rhinoceros, hippo, horse, wild reindeer, tiger, bear, wolf, horse, fox, rabbit, and many birds were found in a cave. Generally, these animals, which can eat each other, would not in any case stay together.

- One example of large grave finds is from France, where more than 10,000 skeletal remains of horses were found.

- Finds of large cemeteries of dinosaurs have also been made. For example, in Belgium many hundreds, even thousands of bones of small dinosaurs were found 300 metres deep in clay stratum. In Montana of USA, about 10,000 bones of duck lizard were found, and from Canadian Alberta graves in which many hundreds of bones of rhinoceros lizards were also found. In addition to this, smaller grave finds related to dinosaurs have been made in different places around the world. It is likely that these animals have been simultaneously devastated. (For example in the book "The age of dinosaur", by well-known evolution researcher Björn Kurten, it is mentioned that several fossils of dinosaurs have been found in the swimming position, their heads twisted backwards, as in a mortal struggle.)

[PetriFB]

I believe also, that the ice age has never been exist, for the age of the globe after all is very young about 6000 year.

... PetriFB's response is to assert without evidence that the earth is about 6000 year old ... Assertions about the general age of the earth should be accompanied with evidence.

Let us review PetriFB's evidence that the earth is 6000 or so years old:

Jewish calendar is very near to the right time. Now we are living Jewish year 5766.

Humans have created many calendars over the ages. What evidence do you have that the Jewish one is correctly dated from about the time of creation?

You can count for the Bible very near the right time.

If we could do that, then there would not be a site called DebatingChristianity. You are asserting that the Bible is right about the Flood and as proof you are using the Bible. Does circular reasoning mean anything to you?

He who believes that the Bible is word of God can't believe to theory of ice age or evolution, because they are adults fairy tales.

Agreed to a point. He who belives that the Bible is literally the word of God must believe in the universal flood. This is not the debate thread for evolution or the ice age unless you explicitly tie them into the topic of the universal flood. I and many others do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. To prove your point, you must either:

1. prove that the Bible is the word of God and is therefore a reliable source of scientific information OR
2. provide scientific evidence that the earth is about 6000 years old and that the flood occurred.

But if somebody wanna believe assumptions and assessments he can believe, but I don't, because truth is a lot of better alternative to believe as assumptions.

If somebody wants to believe in a series of books that they claim has been magically revealed by a supernatural being, he can. But I require evidence.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[steen]

I believe also, that the ice age has never been exist, for the age of the globe after all is very young about 6000 year.

I wonder where these came from, then:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/King%20Clone
http://www.factbug.org/cgi-bin/a.cgi?a=1354042
http://www.wonderquest.com/green-eggs-o ... t-race.htm

[McCulloch]

The debate so far (abridged and paraphrased) :

• PetriFB: Hey, what do you think of this paper that says that there is scientific evidence that the biblical Flood really happened?
• McCulloch: Who wrote it? Why should I pay attention to him?
• Micatala: He seems to reject the scientifically accepted theory of an ice age. There are Christians who reject the idea of a literal universal Flood.
• JCrawford: Many creation scientists theorize that the flood caused an Ice Age of about 700 years duration and offer some evidence in support of their view.
• PetriFB: I don't understand how evolution happened.
• McCulloch: Let's discuss evolution in one of the evolution debate.
• Steen: What does the mythical food have to do with the evolution?
• PetriFB: Evolutionists don't have any right kind of connection about biblical flood.
• Micatala: How life came to be as it is and whether there was a global flood are really separate issues. There are those who reject evolution who question whether a global flood occurred.
• McCulloch: The guy makes a big thing about the fossils in the Karroo region of South-Africa. Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation and shows that this guy is all wet.
• PetriFB: I believe also, that the ice age has never been exist, for the age of the globe after all is very young about 6000 year.
• McCulloch: Assertions about the general age of the earth should be accompanied with evidence.
• PetriFB: Jewish calendar shows that the earth is about 6000 years old. You can count for the Bible very near the right time. He who believes that the Bible is word of God can't believe to theory of ice age.
• QED: The biblical date for the Flood contradicts what we know about Egyptian history.
• McCulloch: PetriFB's calendar proof is not valid. His appeal to the Bible as evidence is circular. I require evidence.
• PetriFB: Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Petri's argument seems to be, "We should believe in the biblical account of the Flood because the Bible tells me so and I don't understand how evolution works. " Did I miss anything relevent? Did Petri post the paper by Jari Iivanainen with any intent of discussing actual content of the paper?

[PetriFB]

I believe also, that the ice age has never been exist, for the age of the globe after all is very young about 6000 year.

I wonder where these came from, then:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/King%20Clone
http://www.factbug.org/cgi-bin/a.cgi?a=1354042
http://www.wonderquest.com/green-eggs-o ... t-race.htm

King Clone is thought to be the oldest Creosote bush ring. It is 22 meters (67 feet) in diameter and is estimated to be 11,700 years old.

ESTIMATED is not a fact and we can't trust estimation, but facts!

Investigators found fossil leaf fragments identical to the living bush 5.3 miles (8.5 km) away. University of Tasmania scientists carbon dated the fossils as 43,600 years old. The fossil cell structure and shape are the same as the living plant’s, which can only mean the ancient plant was triploid also.

Carbon method is based on there, that plants suck from the air carbon dioxide and radioactive isotope, C14. From the plants it gets into body of herbivores and carnivores. After the death, its acquisition ceases and amount slowly reduces. What less radiocarbon is in specimen , it older it is in principle. In carbon-method is in any case its own problems. One example about that are bones, which dated 30,000 years old, and bones were on top of tree, which dated 16,000 years old. Another classical C14-problem examples are 11 specimens in Irak in prehistoric village called Jarmo, and ages of those 11 specimens changed from the few year to the 6000 year. However, the analysis of the archeological proves indicated that village has been exist at the most 500 year, and after that it was perfectly deserted.

From the castle of Oxford taken stucco specimens gave age of 7 270 year; However, castle was built only 800 years ago. This indicate, that we cannot know absorption and fragmentation of carbon.

From Shefferville's iron mine in Canada was found for petrifaction tree for layer (which in every tables are based behind 600 million years) later it was said originated for younger period, 'only ' from period of 100 million year. Two independent carbon research gave its age however only about 4000 year.

Carbon method is unreliable method and we cannot trust to it!

[Grumpy]

PetriFB

The carbon dating techniques are very reliable WHEN USED CORRECTLY.
If I make a castle out of clay bricks containing 10,000 year old organic material then the carbon date will come up 10,000 even if I just finished yesterday.
If I date a carbonized leaf from a coal deposit at 10,000 it may be inaccurate due to leaching of carbon from other sources.(it is probably older than tested)
The carbon in the remains of the creosote ring can be assumed to be from the activity of the plant itself and should be very accurate.

Three different examples with three degrees of accuracy. Used correctly the carbon dating technique is very accurate to about 50,000 years.

Grumpy 8)

[PetriFB]

PetriFB

The carbon dating techniques are very reliable WHEN USED CORRECTLY.
If I make a castle out of clay bricks containing 10,000 year old organic material then the carbon date will come up 10,000 even if I just finished yesterday.
If I date a carbonized leaf from a coal deposit at 10,000 it may be inaccurate due to leaching of carbon from other sources.(it is probably older than tested)
The carbon in the remains of the creosote ring can be assumed to be from the activity of the plant itself and should be very accurate.

Three different examples with three degrees of accuracy. Used correctly the carbon dating technique is very accurate to about 50,000 years.

Grumpy 8)

Carbon method is based on there, that plants suck from the air carbon dioxide and radioactive isotope, C14. From the plants it gets into body of herbivores and carnivores. After the death, its acquisition ceases and amount slowly reduces. What less radiocarbon is in specimen , it older it is in principle. In carbon-method is in any case its own problems. One example about that are bones, which dated 30,000 years old, and bones were on top of tree, which dated 16,000 years old. Another classical C14-problem examples are 11 specimens in Irak in prehistoric village called Jarmo, and ages of those 11 specimens changed from the few year to the 6000 year. However, the analysis of the archeological proves indicated that village has been exist at the most 500 year, and after that it was perfectly deserted.

Carbon method is unreliable method, which cannot keep as reliable method.

[Grumpy]

PetriFB

As I stated, when used correctly carbon dating is very reliable as are all the other methods, you are simply wrong.

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to ca 60,000 years. Within archaeology it is considered an absolute dating technique. The technique was discovered by Willard Frank Libby and his colleagues in 1949. In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for radiocarbon dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

For more accurate info see above link.

Grumpy 8)

[PetriFB]

PetriFB

As I stated, when used correctly carbon dating is very reliable as are all the other methods, you are simply wrong.

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to ca 60,000 years. Within archaeology it is considered an absolute dating technique. The technique was discovered by Willard Frank Libby and his colleagues in 1949. In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for radiocarbon dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

For more accurate info see above link.

Grumpy 8)

Carbon dating is very unreliable method as has been proved before!

[PetriFB]

PetriFB

As I stated, when used correctly carbon dating is very reliable as are all the other methods, you are simply wrong.

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to ca 60,000 years. Within archaeology it is considered an absolute dating technique. The technique was discovered by Willard Frank Libby and his colleagues in 1949. In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for radiocarbon dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

For more accurate info see above link.

Grumpy 8)

To the famous Torino shroud was made C-14-radiocarbon measurement in year 1988. Was aspired to clarify, when linen has been prepared. For the age of the linen was got 610 - 740 year. Age assessment didn't correspond their expectations, which claimed that in the linen was image of death Jesus. For preserving of belief was admitted, that to C-14 radioactive constant basing age assessment has proved to be very inaccurate. Even inventor of the examination Willard F . Libby informed, that C-14-method is not useful to the purpose. However C-14-measurement is wanted renew. Why?

Measurements, which are based to radioactive material fragmentation give only values connected to material contents. On the contents are not informed time, but the amount of the radioactivity which remains in specimen or examining material composition.

Defining of the time base always to various presumptions and assessments. Almost always can have several various measurement results and like this also age assessments can be made according to need. We can say that is wanted, that measurements can have values wanted by orderer, and on those basis they believe that age of that Torino shourd is about 2000 years.

Personally I believe that Torino shroud is big deception. And carbon measurements are big cheat. But if somebody wanna live in lies, so he lives!

[Grumpy]

PetriFB

Whether you understand the concept or not the truth is that ,properly applied to once living matter the carbon dating process is one of the most reliable and accurate dating methods. This will not change just because you don't know what your talking about. Your young age opinions are simply scientificly not valid and the Answers in Genesis website is full of such misinformation. If necessary I will fill your space with the truth but something tells me that it would be wasted on you.

Grumpy 8)