Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Orogeny]

It’s vastly too clear, even a child can understand what’s shown there with ease, why is it so hard for you to see?

Well, that is clearly appropriate because anyone with more than a child’s understanding of geology would laugh at this conspiracy theory video.

This is simple, basic, absolutely absurd how the logic is presented on it being so clear, those lines and patterns are not random at all, the pieces fit together too perfectly to simply toss it out the window just because it conflicts with your current understanding.

It is truly a simple video, but the ideas it puts forth are lies. One of the biggest is the claim that there is no subduction. That is easily observed today.

I’m learning more and more here about how the so called “experts” are holding us back from advancing our understanding of God’s creation. I’ve lost all respect for everything I’ve ever been taught about science, for it is a flawed understanding, it’s to the point of herasy at this stage. No wonder I’ve had so much opposition when presenting my own theories to the community, they don’t want to hear the truth, they want to have their lack of understanding reinforced by other’s lack of understanding.

Well, to my knowledge, the Church has not taught that plate tectonics is heresy. I guess that puts you at odds with the Church as well as with scientists.

The only thing this is doing is making me take a much harder look at everything I’ve been taught, I’m re-evaluating it all at this stage. Science has failed, it has in the past, it is now, it will in the future, it’s a toy at best, and in most cases, a complete waste of time especially when it clearly goes against the word of God. It would be really cool to form a group or system that can seriously go through all of what we are taught and take a second take on it all, for we are being lied to on a massive scale.

Well, if you do form a group like that, make sure you are not in an area that the black helicopters can see you. Oh, sorry. I forgot. They can see you no matter where you are!

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Well, that is clearly appropriate because anyone with more than a child’s understanding of geology would laugh at this conspiracy theory video.It is truly a simple video, but the ideas it puts forth are lies. One of the biggest is the claim that there is no subduction. That is easily observed today.Well, to my knowledge, the Church has not taught that plate tectonics is heresy. I guess that puts you at odds with the Church as well as with scientists. Well, if you do form a group like that, make sure you are not in an area that the black helicopters can see you. Oh, sorry. I forgot. They can see you no matter where you are!

Peace

Tim

Gee, mountain builder - forget the conspiracy nonsense.

I only linked the video because it looked very logical in what it suggested. If they all fit together on a smaller earth (I have not veriifed the video) then it needs explanation.

Perhaps there is a place for both theories.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Nope, he can have absolutely nothing to do with it, he would have to take a hard look at what he’s been taught, he’d have to actually question his reasoning, can’t have any of that, that goes against the cencored flow.

 

[Orogeny]

Gee, mountain builder - forget the conspiracy nonsense.

My reply wasn’t directed at you Buffalo. You already knew how I felt about that video.

I only linked the video because it looked very logical in what it suggested. If they all fit together on a smaller earth (I have not veriifed the video) then it needs explanation.

They fit together with the current theory of plate tectonics. A big difference between the two is that there is plenty of easily observable evidence for plate tectonics and, therefore, it is a scientific theory where as the expanding earth “theory” is a theory only in that guy’s mind. No evidence and, based on the videos, several lies.

Perhaps there is a place for both theories.

Nope.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Nope, he can have absolutely nothing to do with it, he would have to take a hard look at what he’s been taught, he’d have to actually question his reasoning, can’t have any of that, that goes against the cencored flow.

Really? If you would like to learn some science, let me know. If not, continue going to youtube for you “science” and continue being in the dark about that which you speak. You don’t even begin to understand plate tectonics or why it is accepted in science. How can you refute that which you don’t understand the basics of? Nevermind. I already know the answer to that question.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

Besides misspelling “heresy” you misunderstand the relationship between science and religion. Scientific claims about geology, global non-floods, evolutionary processes, gravity, etc., might be false or misunderstood, but there are not heresies.

As to community opposition to your theories, perhaps it’s because the community is too well educated to fall for garden-variety crackpot science. My organization receives a lot of hate mail from crackpot loners who bitterly complain that we are opposed to true science just because some pet theory of theirs has been dismissed as loony. I don’t know your credentials, but if the scientific community doesn’t take you seriously, there is probably a good reason for that, and you needn’t look for a conspiracy to explain it. If I got the idea that chemical science was wrong to have dismissed the phlogiston theory, I’d had to do a lot more than complain bitterly to get it reinstated as a serious contender in the marketplace of scientific ideas.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

My reply wasn’t directed at you Buffalo. You already knew how I felt about that video.They fit together with the current theory of plate tectonics. A big difference between the two is that there is plenty of easily observable evidence for plate tectonics and, therefore, it is a scientific theory where as the expanding earth “theory” is a theory only in that guy’s mind. No evidence and, based on the videos, several lies.Nope.

Peace

Tim

Just happened to do a google search:

A general introduction to The Expanding Earth

and this

Plate Tectonics and The Expanding Earth - A Discounted Theory

 

[He_Man]

I believe it, with only a little skepticism.

And that is only because I have a hard time believeing Noah got two strange cats to coexist on the Ark

 

[Orogeny]

Just happened to do a google search:

A general introduction to The Expanding Earth

Another conspiracy theory site.

and this

Plate Tectonics and The Expanding Earth - A Discounted Theory

Better.

Peace

Tim

 

[whiteknite]

how exactly did the 600 years old Noah and his family gather the 1,190,200 known species of invertebrates, 5416 species of mammals, 5743 species of amphibians, 9917 species of birds and appx. 8163 species of reptiles, - and each species with its many different families and subgroups? And this in only seven days?
And of humans there were only four pairs: Noah (hardly particularly fertile when 600 years old), his wife and their three sons and their wives.

 

[drpmjhess]

how exactly did the 600 years old Noah and his family gather the 1,190,200 known species of invertebrates, 5416 species of mammals, 5743 species of amphibians, 9917 species of birds and appx. 8163 species of reptiles, - and each species with its many different families and subgroups? And this in only seven days?
And of humans there were only four pairs: Noah (hardly particularly fertile when 600 years old), his wife and their three sons and their wives.

And how did his 570-year-old daughters-in-law conceive children to propagate the race?

 

[Brian_Millar]

Plate tectonics are absolutely not a difficult science to master, why is it so hard to realize there is more to it then presently accepted.

I take into account the bible, that’s what we have to crossrefrence what modern science tries to convey. We have this as a literary reference, created in ancient times, looking at what it has to say from the beginning, long, long before any of what is termed as new, or cutting edge, shows clearly, it’s correct from the beginning. Yet, you cannot handle it at all, why do you even read it if you don’t believe it to be true? What is the point here at all with the discussion if all you are doing is standing your ground, keeping your mind closed and not looking at all of the options at your disposal. Not very scientific in my book at all.

Is the world flat? That was considered science, it was mainstream, all those that had a different perspective were not only frowned upon, many were killed for their beliefs. We look back now with utter distain for that approach, both in it’s implimentation and the fact we know far better in this matter. In the future, they will look back at current understandings with the same distain, I’d prefer to think we can see through this and really get the facts straight.

 

[Philipp]

The Austin Chalk is only one of many different carbonate formations in Texas. There are some older and some younger. There are also sandstone and shale formations both above and below the Austin Chalk.

[Philipp: (1) Most sediments form very rapidly by trangression and then regression; then there is a period of time between those rapid flows or tides when the fine particles settle out slowly. Evidence for this is manifest in the scientific literature by field observation after a Colorado River catasrophy, in the Bay of Naples Italy and many lab and flume studies. Again I repeat this is why the fossil footprints trails of both humans and of dinosaurs are visible in the Glen Rose “Creataceous” limestone rocks in the bottom of the Paluxy river TX. Rapid flow followed by quiet periods. (2) The Noah story is alos supported by C-14 dating of burnt wood imbedded in the bottom of the river indicates the footprints were made but 12,800 RC years BP. Other dates for “carbonized wood” hovers about 37,000 +/- RC years so the real dates still remain unknown but are 2000 to 3000 times younger than what conventional geologic assumptions claim.

Speaking of chalks, one of the most famous chalks is found in the cliffs of Dover, England. Is it your contention that that formation is also the result of volcanic activity?

[Philipp: There are many carbonates, chalk genreally being the purest. Some of the bones of the Acrocanthosasurus were partially buried in chalk so hard that drill bits broke. The Acrocanthosaurus bone was discovered sticking up into what used to be clay along the Paluxy river Glen Rose strata three miles upstream from the fossil human footprints. So in my estimation chalk can form quickly in a rapid flowing environment.
You might want to read a compolete discussion on chalk formation in this reference:
Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Beds? | Answers in Genesis]

There is NO evidence of a global flood. That is not an assumption. That is as true as the fact that the sunrise is in the east and the sunset is in the west.Wow. Answers in Genesis. The organization that REQUIRES members to ignore evidence that contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. Imagine them opposing the facts.

[Philipp: What I have observed in my field and lab research and C-14 dating of all fossils I sense that AIG and ICR are far closer to the true chronology of earth’s history than evolutionary arguments and assumptions. I am a bit like you who depend on what evolutionists tell you as facts. As a beliver in what Moses was told by the Creataor I must depend on what the geologists and paleontologist of the Creation community claim and then I ask myself does their science fit what I have observed over 25 years of field and lab research. I’m actually a catastrophist in the mold of Immanuel Velilovsky the agnostic writer so I try and study the data from all sides. I would highly recommend that you do likewise.]

To view a most interesting impression I suggest everyone visit
www.creationevidence.org and go the the last item in the MENU and study the human and dinosaur footprint combo. The human one is a mate to the 11 inch long print I helped excavate in 1983. Both could be considred 8-9 with 10 being best but I must give the one on this web site a jolly good 10. Visit the sight and you’ll see why. I think these were some of the “folks who missed the boat” along with the dinosaurs who also left their footprint impressions.

Moses got it right, Darwin got it wrong.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Nice, thought I’d post a photo of the evidence in question, glad we have you here Philipp.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I then can go back to my crazy thinking, using the bible as a reference, the skeptics should read Job sometime, it clearly desribes two different dinasaurs, too bad the scientific community only recently figured out what was described was in fact real and known long, long ago.

 

[drpmjhess]

Nice, thought I’d post a photo of the evidence in question, glad we have you here Philipp.

http://www.creationevidence.org/images/Cretaceous_Footprint_1.jpg

I then can go back to my crazy thinking, using the bible as a reference, the skeptics should read Job sometime, it clearly desribes two different dinasaurs, too bad the scientific community only recently figured out what was described was in fact real and known long, long ago.

I remember faking something like this in third grade!

 

[Philipp]

I remember faking something like this in third grade!

PHILIPP: The above nasty statement is something I would expect coming from a modernist theologian who claims that Genesis is NOT history but just mythology with a religious message. We who are truly searching for the truth do find and reconfirm what nature provides whether you and your ilk like it or not. The practice of true science is a constant repetition of experiments or observations to double check on an initial discovery. There have been over 100 fossil human footprints with over 300 dinosaur footprints discovered in different strata of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose TX over 25 years with hundreds of witnesses and in several technical papers. One casting of a series in the river bottom is in the Glendive Montana dinosaur and fossil museum thanks to the persistence of a “Christian” paleontologist and a geologist. Most were uncovered under tons of rock in the second strata in Cretaceous limestone above the river in #2 strata. There will be nother public excavation June 30 to July 4. Perhaps I will get to meet you there? Fat chance!

May I suggest you change your name? If Petrus means Peter [my Latin is rusty], I’m sure his bones are turning over in their grave in Rome after your barbaric statement.

So here are some more references for you to try trashing without reading or studying; but, perhaps others will see the true meaning of the data with regards the Noah story:

Snelling,Andrew, 2005. Radiocarbon in diamond confirmed answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

Snelling, Andrew 1998. Rapid rocks: granite formation answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/granite.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1998. Radioisotope dating in the Grand Canyon answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1997. A 165 million year old surprise answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/surprise.asp

• Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Dating dilemma: Fossil wood in ancient sandstone answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1999Radioactive dating failures answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1997. Radioactive data in conflict: Fossil wood in ancient lava yields radiocarbon. answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1992, Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 2000. Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

• Fossil wood in ancient sandstone answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp A radiocarbon date of 33,720 +/-430 years BP was obtained for a piece of wood allegedly 225-250 Million years BP based on evolutionary dogma.

 

[Orogeny]

Plate tectonics are absolutely not a difficult science to master, why is it so hard to realize there is more to it then presently accepted.

It sure seems to be.

What research have you done that is so damaging to the current theory? When will you be publishing your work?

I take into account the bible, that’s what we have to crossrefrence what modern science tries to convey. We have this as a literary reference, created in ancient times, looking at what it has to say from the beginning, long, long before any of what is termed as new, or cutting edge, shows clearly, it’s correct from the beginning.

You know, that is not how the Church interprets the Bible. She certainly doesn’t use the bible as a science book.

Yet, you cannot handle it at all, why do you even read it if you don’t believe it to be true? What is the point here at all with the discussion if all you are doing is standing your ground, keeping your mind closed and not looking at all of the options at your disposal. Not very scientific in my book at all.

You don’t understand science, so your claim that my position isn’t scientific is meaningless.

Is the world flat? That was considered science, it was mainstream, all those that had a different perspective were not only frowned upon, many were killed for their beliefs.

Yeah, that is inferred from scripture as well. I guess that is one thing you disagree with.

Can you give me a source that says that people were killed by scientists for their beliefs that the earth is not flat?

We look back now with utter distain for that approach, both in it’s implimentation and the fact we know far better in this matter. In the future, they will look back at current understandings with the same distain, I’d prefer to think we can see through this and really get the facts straight.

It is true that scientific theories will change over time (evolve, if you will) as new data becomes available. But unless you have a theory that explains the current data, your theory is not going to get any traction. An expanding earth doesn’t explain the observations.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Philipp: (1) Most sediments form very rapidly by trangression and then regression; then there is a period of time between those rapid flows or tides when the fine particles settle out slowly.

Wrong.

Evidence for this is manifest in the scientific literature by field observation after a Colorado River catasrophy, in the Bay of Naples Italy and many lab and flume studies.

Wrong.

Again I repeat this is why the fossil footprints trails of both humans and of dinosaurs are visible in the Glen Rose “Creataceous” limestone rocks in the bottom of the Paluxy river TX. Rapid flow followed by quiet periods.

So, the Paluxy limestone was deposited during a rapid transgression or a rapid regression?

(2) The Noah story is alos supported by C-14 dating of burnt wood imbedded in the bottom of the river indicates the footprints were made but 12,800 RC years BP. Other dates for “carbonized wood” hovers about 37,000 +/- RC years so the real dates still remain unknown but are 2000 to 3000 times younger than what conventional geologic assumptions claim.

Speaking of chalks, one of the most famous chalks is found in the cliffs of Dover, England. Is it your contention that that formation is also the result of volcanic activity?

[Philipp: There are many carbonates, chalk genreally being the purest. Some of the bones of the Acrocanthosasurus were partially buried in chalk so hard that drill bits broke. The Acrocanthosaurus bone was discovered sticking up into what used to be clay along the Paluxy river Glen Rose strata three miles upstream from the fossil human footprints. So in my estimation chalk can form quickly in a rapid flowing environment.
You might want to read a compolete discussion on chalk formation in this reference:
Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Beds? | Answers in Genesis]

Did you actually try to answer the question about the Dover chalk? What does the hardness of a rock have to do with the sediment when it was deposited?

Actually, I learned about chalk from a real geologist (a carbonate specialist, in fact), not a person claiming to be a scientist (that is in reference to AIGs requirement that their employees ignore all evidence that is contrary to the YEC viewpoint).

[Philipp: What I have observed in my field and lab research and C-14 dating of all fossils I sense that AIG and ICR are far closer to the true chronology of earth’s history than evolutionary arguments and assumptions.

When and where will you be publishing your work?

I am a bit like you who depend on what evolutionists tell you as facts. As a beliver in what Moses was told by the Creataor I must depend on what the geologists and paleontologist of the Creation community claim and then I ask myself does their science fit what I have observed over 25 years of field and lab research. I’m actually a catastrophist in the mold of Immanuel Velilovsky the agnostic writer so I try and study the data from all sides. I would highly recommend that you do likewise.]

That doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Peace

Tim
[/quote]

 

[drpmjhess]

Snelling,Andrew, 2005. Radiocarbon in diamond confirmed answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

Snelling, Andrew 1998. Rapid rocks: granite formation answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/granite.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1998. Radioisotope dating in the Grand Canyon answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1997. A 165 million year old surprise answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/surprise.asp

• Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Dating dilemma: Fossil wood in ancient sandstone answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1999Radioactive dating failures answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1997. Radioactive data in conflict: Fossil wood in ancient lava yields radiocarbon. answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1992, Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 2000. Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

• Fossil wood in ancient sandstone answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp A radiocarbon date of 33,720 +/-430 years BP was obtained for a piece of wood allegedly 225-250 Million years BP based on evolutionary dogma.

You will no doubt have noticed that Snelling publishes Young Earth Creationist tracts with Answers in Genesis, rather than peer-reviewed geological papers in journals vetted by the international geological community!

I recently had a heckler at one of my public talks who said that he believed “Jesus” refers not to a human person but to the name of a hallucinogenic mushroom native to the Levant. He could probably find someone to publish this as well, but that wouldn’t make his theory true.

St. Peter would not be rolling in his grave; Catholics believe he is in heaven rejoicing – as a lover of truth – over what geology and paleontology are discovering about our ancient and dynamic earth!

Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

The practice of true science is a constant repetition of experiments or observations to double check on an initial discovery. There have been over 100 fossil human footprints with over 300 dinosaur footprints discovered in different strata of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose TX over 25 years with hundreds of witnesses and in several technical papers.

Which publications were those technical papers published in?

So here are some more references for you to try trashing without reading or studying; but, perhaps others will see the true meaning of the data with regards the Noah story:

Of course, Answers in Genesis is not a scientific organization. The results of their radiocarbon “research” which includes the information contained in the links you provided (which I removed in this reply to keep the reply shorter) is flawed from several different viewpoints.

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a group of Christian scientists. Their mission statement is this:

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. In matters of science and Christian faith, we offer Christian scholarship, education, fellowship and service to ASA members, churches, educational institutions, the scientific community, and society.

They have reviewed the results of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) “study” and, well, I don’t think you will like their conclusions. I am adding a link to three pages from the ASA website. The first is a page that has links to documents that specifically address some of the claims of the RATE group (which includes Andrew Snelling and the topics discussed in the links you provided). The second is a review of the book generated by the RATE group and the third is a page that includes the RATE response to the review and follow-up comments by ASA members.

asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm#i
asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm
asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-pscf.htm

You may discount the ASA members if you like, but please look at their credentials before you do. Note that these guys are Christians, not athiests.

Peace

Tim