Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar

The age of that tree is unconfirmed. Why did they use carbon-dating instead of tree rings? A small change in the amount of carbon can pretty much change the age by half, whereas with tree rings, you can at least assume that they're close.

You're correct, the date of 9500 years is uncomfirmed. The date they gave is at the low end of their estimates, its likely much older. Would you care however, to cite some data indicating that the ratios of C14:C12 as well as the decay rate of beta particles not being constants.

And yes, you do have to prove why the Amazon forest is so young.

why do I have to prove it? If you're interested I recommend doing a little research on your own. It's not as if you're believing any of the verifiable data I'm sharing. The Forest itself isn't very young, it got its start during the Eocene if I'm remembering correctly. It's just the trees they've tested thus far are on the younger side. And they're not necessarily 6000 years old and are likely much older. I love how you keep trying to tie everything in with the biblical explanation instead of just looking into it on your own and valuations the data. Due dilligence and a little extra knowledge have never killed anybody that I know of.

If "nature" created it, why do we not see any evidence of the trees past 6000 years?

Do the trees need your permission to die or something? First off, if you look at the list of ancient trees with known dates, they are all conifers whereas the trees in Amazonia are deciduous. Very different life cycles. Some trees mature quickly, some take 60-80 years to mature. The latter is true of trees in the amazon rain forest. One major issue with dating trees in Amazonia is that dendrochronology is nearly impossible. To ascertain a trees age you don't just count the rings, you are discerning between the wet and dry seasons to tell where one year ends and the next one begins. In Amazonia, there really aren't differing seasons like the Northeast U.S. for example where there are very clear and defined seasons. The same is NOT true in the amazon rain forest. Thus its very difficult to ascertain the age of trees using dendrochronology. There is also an issue with CO2 absorption. Roughly 1/3 of the worlds carbon is in Amazonia. Trees soak up CO2 but surprisingly the farther into the forest you go, the less atmospheric carbon the trees are Absorbing.In the center of the rain forest there is about half the carbon that was predicted by models. The trees in Amazonia grow slower than in other places and are far older. Consequently trees with a diameter as small as 4" are up to 1000 years old. I'm virus where you got the date of 6000 years for the oldest trees in Amazonia because I haven't come across that dating as yet. However, if trees as small as those with a 4" diameter are 1000 years old, just imagine how old some very large trees would be. Unfortunately the type of climate makes dendrochronology nearly impossible and thus useless.

originally posted by: edmc^2

Sure from your point of view it's not a confirmation. But from my pov, it is for the simple fact that mountains as you said

The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean.

That would equate to as I see it a submerged earth. An earth covered with water.

Or it could be due to how mountain ranges form, unless you want to dispute geology 101 as well.

originally posted by: peter vlar
In fact the last time the entire planet was covered in water with no dry land was 2.5 billion years ago.

Even then it wasn't completely covered. Want to say that was right at the beginning of the Ordovician period but I could be wrong on that point.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: edmc^2

Sure from your point of view it's not a confirmation. But from my pov, it is for the simple fact that mountains as you said

The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean.

That would equate to as I see it a submerged earth. An earth covered with water.

Or it could be due to how mountain ranges form, unless you want to dispute geology 101 as well.

Whats to debate?

a reply to: Cypress

No you're on point. it wasn't completely covered but it was only 2-3% dry land compared to today's 28%. It was for the first 2 billion years of earths existence and covered roughly the first half of the Precambrian. It was mostly due to our core being about 200 degrees Celsius hotter than it is now and its effect on the earths crust was similar to a hot air balloon only in every direction of a sphere I steal of straight up. Once the core cooled sufficiently portion of the crust essentially sank back down allowing the water to fill into these depressions creating the first true oceans. The different elevations in the crust likely played a role in developing plate tectonic as some parts dropped and other areas of dry land rebounded without the weight of all that water keeping it stable from the almost universal pressure.

originally posted by: Pauligirl

In fact, botany has shown that even a single plant will survive for up to a week under water.

a reply to: np6888

Salt water? If ocean water covered all the land, wouldn't it be salty?

I believe the bible says the world was covered for 150 days, 150 days of salty water and that the water receded by day 220?

There are two version also Genesis 7:11;8:1-2 and Genesis 7:12 which says 40 days and then recedes in 7 so take your pick, lol

Wow, this thread sure took a turn for the worse. People are actually arguing that trees can survive at the bottom of the ocean for nearly a year and that fossils in the Himalayas prove a worldwide flood. People are REALLY looking desperate to reconcile their faith. And Edmc is back, Mr semantics preacher himself. Pay him no mind. He does this every 6 months or so, coming in this section and posting all kinds of nonsense. Then he vanishes. He's trying to say the great flood happened, because the earth might have been covered in water some 100+ million years ago when there were less mountains, but at the same time claims the flood happened as recently as 5000 years ago. Yeah, I don't think anybody's buying it.

And by the way, many plants can die simply from over watering them. A worldwide flood that lasted several months, would have killed almost all of them. Sure there would probably be a few species that survived but it would be devastating and the earth wouldn't recover for millions of years from an event like that, and lets not even mention the animals. What exactly did they eat coming off the ark when everything was DEAD? And what's even crazier is that people love and worship the guy that supposedly did this and killed almost all life on earth in a fit of rage. Yeah, that totally sounds like somebody that should be worshiped.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Actually, if you would have taken my earlier advice and done a little research on your own you would know that the oldest confirmed age of a tree is 9500 years old.due Diligence is your friend. Try it sometime, really. It doesn't hurt to be well informed.www.sciencedaily.com...

Actually all he needed to do was read this post on page 6 of this very thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Ahhh... I somehow missed that. I think I also glossed over the fact that my example at the top of this page for the 9500 year old trees in Scandinavia are also colony based. The root system is ancient whereas the above ground portions are only several hundred years old. Yours were better examples and older though. Still not sure how I didn't see it earlier though!

a reply to: peter vlar

Nah they are both clonal trees as well. One is the same tree. Here's a link:
List of oldest trees

As you can see, the clonal trees live the longest while the oldest (currently dated) living tree is up to about 5000 years.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, I was typing that on my iPad will giving my daughter a bath, I meant to say clonal not colony. Damned autocorrect wins again!

a reply to: peter vlar

It's all good, I clearly knew what you were talking about

a reply to: glitchinthematrix

While geological science is not my forte, I do remember a few things from class a couple semesters ago at my university. My teacher, Dr. Hill, told us that geologists know without much of a doubt that there was in fact a global, world-wide flood. So... People can try to say otherwise, but university level science classes teach that "the" flood actually happened. And I think we all know that they aren't in any way partial to creationism. In fact, all too often, they are biased against it.

a reply to: JohnFisher

Howdy,

I'd be very interested in hearing what University and what course you were taught such in. See, geology is my forte, and being a rising senior in a geology program (who has taken courses from paleontology to petrology) I've pretty much exhausted the geology courses offered at my Brethren affiliated university, as well as going on academic field trips to Ontario to see the shield and some great unconformities, New Jersey to see the rift sediments and basalt, and of course the stratigraphy of my local chunk of Appalachia.

Yet despite all this study, not once did any of my openly religious (and Christian, might I add) professors say that there is evidence of a worldwide flood. That is, unless you mean the "waterworld" scenario that has already been alluded to several times in this thread, where the water did not cover all of the land.

So, again, please do back up what you say with some evidence.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: JohnFisher

Citation, please. If it's that much "without much of a doubt" it should be trivial to reference credible peer-reviewed literature.

a reply to: glitchinthematrix

Interesting links. Bookmarked to check out later. I agree there is indeed evidence, though much of it is scattered, and more is misinterpreted. I wonder sometimes what it is that causes some to refuse to accept even the possibility; a dislike of religion, or a fear of something so catastrophic. Perhaps both.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: glitchinthematrix

Interesting links. Bookmarked to check out later. I agree there is indeed evidence, though much of it is scattered, and more is misinterpreted. I wonder sometimes what it is that causes some to refuse to accept even the possibility; a dislike of religion, or a fear of something so catastrophic. Perhaps both.

Because it is scientifically impossible. If I were to entertain the possibility of a global flood then I should also entertain the possibility that wizards like Gandolf exist and can cast fireballs and all sorts of crazy spells that alter reality. Plenty of evidence has already been posted in this thread, not to mention many sound, logical arguments posted that sufficiently refute the idea of a global flood to the point that it is no longer a debate. There is reality and then there is the bible. It's clearly fiction.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

In my experience its the absolute void of evidence for a singular, world wide flood event. This isn't a disputable scenario its a basic fact of geology that there were and have been many large scale flood events but never one singular worldwide flood during the course of human history or prehistory.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: glitchinthematrix
I wonder sometimes what it is that causes some to refuse to accept even the possibility; a dislike of religion, or a fear of something so catastrophic. Perhaps both.

It's even simpler: the deafening lack of evidence. For some people, taking the bible at face value is not enough to quell their thirst for knowledge.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

In my experience its the absolute void of evidence for a singular, world wide flood event. This isn't a disputable scenario its a basic fact of geology that there were and have been many large scale flood events but never one singular worldwide flood during the course of human history or prehistory.

It should be mentioned that even if a global flood HAD occurred there are STILL scientific (and engineering) impossibilities that make the story untrue. Like the account of two of every animal or the fact that Noah's Ark would be too big to float from the VERY dimensions listed in the bible. If Noah built the ark in the bible, his fate would have been the same as every other species on the planet if a global flood occurred.