Pre-flood conditions, according to the Bible, are as follows: The freshwater of earth, or rather, that which currently makes up our hydro-vaporsphere, prior to the flood, was stored underground, and rose like a mist to water the roots of plants. This is commonly used today by horticulturalists and is called aeroponics. It's utilized because it allows the roots to absorb a maximum ammount of oxygen, nutreints, and still stay hydrated, causing rediculous growth from start to finish in any variety of flora. Plants themselves already have suprising characteristics due to the range of it's reactions to outside stimulii, but the method of aeroponic growth is, across the board, the ideal method of propagation and cultivation of any and all plant types outside of cactii (Which I can't say for absolutly certain, because I've never grown cactii, trees, or ferns aeroponically). Most people think that water is a plants best friend, but it actually sits right underneath the nutrient it takes in, the Carbon Dioxide used by the leaves to metabolize said nutrients, the sunlight used to metabolize aforementioned CO2, and on top of them all, the Oxygen that enters the root structure. I will use this to model one of the support pillars of my theory. If a plant is given the right mixture of sunlight (And in the right spectrum and Kelvin Temperature), O2, CO2, nutrients, and water, it will not only thrive, but will become somewhat of a giant version of itself, and in the ideal environment, will turn into something seen only in the 'fossil record'...a giant ultra-vital fruit producing mega plant, which turns CO2 into O2 by the cubic gallon, and is the base phsyiological platform for all life surrounding it. God made plantlife on the third day for a reason. On the fourth day, He made the sun, moon, and stars, the first which produces both light (Visible and UV) and radiant heat for the plants to metabolize CO2 and Nutrients, etc, and the moon second, to pull the water vapor to the surface by gravitational pull, to water the plants at night, away from the Suns rays, which when upon meeting water droplets, become like small lasers, and burn holes in a plants leaves. By the fourth day, God had made the model self sustaining graden, with the ideal delivery system of O2, water, light, radiant heat, and UVA/B spectrum light, which kills microbes which would otherwise hurt the plant if exposed to this spectrum of light above the soils surface. The same microbes break down nutreints at the root level and promote absorbtion into the rootstructure. Like I said, prefect.

So, now here we are, earth, on the fourth day of creation, and all around us are super virile plants producing perfect fruits, seeds, air, and keeping the humidity at a constantly perfect level. Now, we come to the fifth day, where God, in His infinite perfect wisdom, invents the beast of earth. Cows, fishes, birds, whales, and everything that is to move on the earth. Each one of them has a purpose, most of which is to support God's garden at this time, with the herbavores keeping the plantlife from overgrowth, the fish pooping out, for all intents and purposes, Nitrogen fertilizer, whales eating the krill and small fishes of the sea (As an overgroth check mechanism to prevent overcrowding and extinction of food supplies) which themselves produce O2, and all of them exhaling CO2, completing God's perfectly circular garden, which is it's own end and beginning, completely independant of upkeep and maintenance by outside sources. It is merely contained and tamed by the day five creations, which keep it from growing so large and widespread as to cause the earth to be cramped, or otherwise like a gigantic jungle. Now, to take a few steps back...

The world, upon creation, had one giant super continent, which we commonly call Pangea. Before the flood, all the water was held underground, with the only above ground water being like giant lakes, or seas, which contain the fish and whales. The fish poop out nitrogen rich plant food, which I also learned through hydroponic cultivation. The utilisation of this is called aquaponics, and uses fish poo to fertilize plants, as it is the perfect plant food. Before the flood, this poop would have settled at the bottom of the seas, and the nitrogen would have seeped into the ground water, causing the mist to become like a perfected version of an aeroponic nutrient solution. So since all of the water was underground, and had to come upwards, another revelation hits us: soil porosity. The soil would have had to have been spongy like rockwool in order for the mist to penetrate upwards through unknown fathoms of dirt. So, here we are, with spongy soil, and as a kicker, all of the water is stored underground. Here's the second support pillar for my theory. The soils height combined with a massive water table underneath it would have pushed the ground level up, which I estimate with my GED level education, to have been at least a mile upwards (More approximately, about 17,000 feet), creating pillar number two: A Hyperbaric Environment. Because there was no vast ocean, nor nearly as many mountain ranges as we currently have, the air pressure would have been much higher than it is today. For grins and giggles, I'll say it's 2 bars, which is twice what it is today. This would have inhibited the water vapor from rising into clouds, the O2 would have been FORCED into the bloodstreams of the animals and the roots of plants. CO2 would have been forced into the leaves of plants as well, and further enhanced by the sun's intensity from their constant position. Also, due to the lack of water canopy or oceanic jetstream, and the enhanced UVA/B level along with the temperature, winter would have not existed yet. So, now we have a near complete picture of earth before mankind has even shown up. I'll list the various variable thus far:

1. High O2 levels
2. Medium CO2 levels
3. Warm environment due to:
a. UVA and UVB exposure due to lack of vapor canopy
b. Higher ground level
c. Lack of snow, or otherwise any winter conditions what so ever.
d. Regulated and constant humidity level, causing no variation in temperature.
4. Ultra Virile Plantlife, producing flawless fruits with all necessary nutrients to sustain life, O2 like crazy, and keeping said humidity in check.
5. Animals which at exclusively fruits and vegetables, causing no ground pollution from fecal waste which produces nitrogen instead of toxins, along with pumping out CO2 for the plants, and keeping them in check, and free of overgrowth.
6. Spongy soil that allows for both O2 and water vapor access to the root structures of plants.
7. Nitrogen fertilizer producing fish poop in the seas.
8. Oxygen producing krill and plankton in the seas.
9. Whales and fish to keep the plankton and krill in check.
10. Underground reserviors containing all (estimated) freshwater, probably below what we now call 'bedrock'.

Now, mankind, aside from cultivation, farming, and otherwise maintaining the garden, were reletively uneffective in the grand scheme of things, and were most likely created because God wanted them there. To be created in His image is to be the only existing idol of God on earth, which should say something, as we are the only thing mentioned in the Bible to have been created in His image. Given this great bounty of perfect food, in a perfect environment, something happened:

Man lived an average of 907.5 years, not including Enoch who was taken up, or Noah, who was alive for and after the flood. Now, we come to about 1600 years later at the flood. You'll notice when reading the story that first, the chasm of the great deep burst. That would have caused a humongous quick sand pit, which, due to our very physiology (Small base - feet, with all weight on top), would have sucked every man with feet on the ground into the earth. It's as if the ground became a liquid. The resulting drop in barometric pressure from the saturation and settling of the soil (No longer porous due to rising and falling water level) would have made evaporation poissible, causing, in a matter of minutes, the worlds first rainclouds, which, after another couple of minutes, would have dumped rainwater all over the earth. So, even if the rain didn't occur, all was dead due to the suckage caused by the liquid earth. The result was a layering effect, with the light birdlike animals on top, the lighter animals under them, the heavier wider and more apt to swim animals (Reptiles) under them (they would have at least struggled), and below them, the denser, and stockier less able to swim amphibians, with the ground dwelling bugs and shellfish at the very bottom. Well, actually, at the very bottom are the perflood men of Cain and all who had been dead and buried underground. Those buried in tombs are probably still in the mountains the tombs were cut out of (Probably iced over durring the first precipitation), only higher up, because the following happened;

The dirt settled. After it went upwards, and downwards with the water, it settled underneath the billions of tons of newly sufaced water, cementing in all the life burried in it, causing the layers we now attribute to the prehistoric eras. The resulting dirt was now harder, and packed down by settling water, and the run off causing a system of rivers, valleys, and channels we now also attribute to glaciers.
"But what about the wooly mammoths, sabre toother tigers, and other mammalians we see frozen into big blocks of ice in the glaciers?"
Mammals still retain this odd ability we call the sixth sense. I think originally it was installed by God to warn the animal's companion people, wether they be their herdsmen or neighbors by region, or oncomming disasters, like lightening storms, earthquakes, and other natural calamaties, in a "follow the fleeing animals, because they're running from SOMETHING" fashion. Possibly a first warning system. The mammals which inhabited the earth tried to flee before the flood, making it north and south, only to be met by the world largest snowstorm, caused by the earths fledgling jetstream. The colder air, and new moisture froze them into blocks of ice called glaciers today, and here you have the iceage. Actually, it was probably only a few ice months.

"What about the fur?! It was warm dummy! Why did they have fur?"
For the same reason they adapt to thier climates today by furring up. Here's a cool experiment. Buy a pig. It doesn't matter how big or old it is, just as long as it's pink, tuskless, and domesticated. Now kick it out. Yeah, that's right, evict it. Put that bad boy in the woods, and you'll see something crazy happen. It'll grow fur. It'll grow tusks. It'll become a wild pig. How long does this take, you may ask. No longer than three weeks. Yeah, from pink Babe on the breakfast plate piggy to a man mauling wild pig in three weeks flat. No joke, it's true. The following generations of man and beast would devolve slowly, due to the reduced availability of food, diet, and other factors both genetic and environmental. Over the next 4500 years, they'd becomer what we now see today.

That's it. I know, typos, horrible grammar, homonculaic vocabulary. I did my best, and hopefully y'all feel the point I'm driving at with it. Go ahead, convene amongst yourselves, and hit my up if ya have any questions.

Ian

Thanks.

I'm not "studied-up" on all of the physics.


But, some of what you said may have merit.
The coal beds , crude oil deposits, natural gas , etc came from somewhere. Where?
Your theory might hold some of the answers.

dennis manning

I hope so. All it needs is someone with the scholastic backing to review it. While it is my theory, I'm not exactly schooled up either, and base most of what I know on my experience with self taught hydroponic applications, for the most part, built at home, by hand. I recognized that as I went along, the closer I got to the Genesis account of the form of the Earth, the better my plants grew. Since plantlife essentially determines all life around it, especially in a situation where most animals and all men were herbivores, the vitality of said plants would have a great deal to do with the health and rigor of the life surrounding it.

It only made sense to me, so I figured, hey, why not latch on, sort it out, and see where it takes me? I hope someone with the technical knowhow takes a look at this and offers me some insight, or at very least, some criticism, so I can get my facts and figures sorted out.

You did your homework, I don't think my Earth Sciene Instructor could have done a better job. I'll agree on most of what you said. But, Genesis 1:2, says God mande the earth void. I believe this was when the dinasuars and wholly mammouths may have died out. The Big Boom Theory. But Job also talks about wierd creatures walking among mankind...also another theory to address. Your little essay here would be good for those who want to believe in evolution vs. creationsim! And you would have a tough argument, using the sciences you have discussed here. Bravo!

I like the senerios about the dirt being a giant sponge. I beleive that this has been proven. In the many layers of packed dirt deposits that form the different rocks layers, etc. in mountain ranges.....I can see the correlation about all the water settling and the slip that forms at the bottom turning into our modern day soil.....

I have no explaination for coal, tar, or oil. I wish I had the necessary schooling to explain it, but I don't. I do know that the tower of Babel was mortared with bitumen, which is from coal, and is created through the distillization of carbon disulfides. It is supposedly from fossils and the like, although I'd think that the unique properties of someone who was half man and half, oh I don't know, fallen angel, would possibly produce some odd by products when decomposing. I have a similar theory that is also where radioactive materials comes from, although there's no scientific proof or reasearch to back it up. Possibly, since Hell is most often associated with sulfer and brimstone, it could be a byproduct of it's existence, since there is no way under creation sceinces that the Earth is a slowly evolved 4 billion year old rock, thus the rapid production and formation of these materials would have to be a topic to ponder.

everwatchful, you may not be as educated as some are, but that is some deep thinking there, my friend. Yea, we don't have to be rocket scientists, now do we. God gave us understanding...His understanding!

Everwatchful, you may not be degreed; in man's knowledge, but we don't have to be a rocket scientist. You have an elevated understanding of nature and how it works! I am so glad that we have a divine understanding, when it's God's understanding that really counts here...I guess that gives you a PHD in God's plan of Creation!

You Rock...Keep digging for the truth!

Awesome post!! That's a great explanation of it all.

Now I just wish a bunch of atheists would accidentally dig up a nephilim's fossilized remains! Watch, they'd probably try to say that it's a giant monkey that humans evolved from!

But from what you said, I don't think its even possible to reach where their remains are buried...oh well...

You should read the Book of Enoch, which gives an in-depth account of Satan, his fallen angels, and the Flood. You can find it online.

I've seen Bible codes that state that the Garden of Eden was in what is now Ethiopia.

I have the book of Enoch, and the secret book of Enoch in a misc scriptures book I bought some time ago. The Gnostic scrips in there are really weird, all aboiut God being evil, and Jesus being from Sophia, blah, blah, blah. I love reading old Jewish Pseudigraphica and apocryphas...they're really interesting.

I figure that my hypothesis will never get tested, simply because if it does, it'll take 10 years or more, and I doubt we even have that long, and probably will have more important things to worry about.

For one there is nothing called the "Hydro-vaporsphere"..
I'm assuming you're referring to the Hydrosphere. Its is absolutely absurd
to suggest that the entire hydrosphere could be stored underground.
Many many problems will occur when trying to prove this. For one
we would see vastly different geological features such as a vast amount
of the earth covered in ice due to the thermohaline conveyor be inexistent.
This is assuming that we still had an atmosphere.. which we would not if we didn't have
the hydrosphere. Where does the energy to convert the water into mist come from?
I'm not going to go into great detail because the list would likely
take a while to compile. On to your Aeroponics claim.. Without an atmosphere there
would be no possibility for any plant life to survive. The end. I'm not even going to
go into the rest of your radical and at best pseudo-scientific claims about plant life.
Its 6am here and I need to get some sleep.. if you feel the need to reply to this I will
be more than happy to go into much much greater detail when I have more energy to do so.
Leave science to real scientists..

Welcome to the forum

LMAO.

Dude, the Bible says that it had never rained on earth before the flood, and all of the water was stored underground in vast caverns.

Argue with God, and prove your 'theory' using the same science you obviously place so much faith in, that way we can bat it around, and see what's really hood.


After you get some sleep, I mean.

Sorry, just a thought, if we have to leave science to the real scientists, shouldn't people then also leave the ways of the Spirit, to those of the Spirit?

Well, you are still welcome Equation. but you must admit there is truth to my logic
C

Of course there was a great flood, no scientist or satanist can dispute that. Flood legends are a part of virtually every human culture and there is indisputable evidence of a great flood in "Noah's world" of Western Asia in the correct Biblical timeline of Noah.

There are many Christian believers including lettered scientists that are able to see a compatibility between the Bible and the latest scientific theories of Earth Science. The Creation Epic of Genesis is a remarkable explanation of the Geologic record if we except God's "days" as "epochs" of great amounts of time, as many believing Christians are able to do. Likewise, the bible can be interpreted to mean it was "Noah's world" that was flooded, and not the entire world. The animals Noah "saved" may have been just those he needed for his family and future generations to have a livelihood after the flood and some interpetations of scritpure support this view. By accepting this version of the story as many Christians are able to do, their faith cannot be ridiculed. Nor must Christians have to believe in circumstances that become more and more implausible. For example, some Christians believe the "dragons" that appear throughout the Bible are not heavenly creatures as actually explained in scripture, but rather "dinosaurs". And for the dinosaurs to have survived a world-wide flood, then at least some species, including large carnivorous ones that would be called "dragons" somehow rode on the Ark as well!

Why must some Christians alway pick the most implausible interpetation of scripture guaranteed to bring ridicule upon our Faith? Would Jesus approve of this? Christians who drive people away from the Faith by insisting the most implausible and fantastic explanations of every Biblical event must be the correct explanation, when the same scripture can also allow interpetation compatible with the science and geologic history of the Earth believed in by the majority of the world today.

Could some sincere and devout Christians be unwittingly blaspheming God by their continued insistence in the most implausible and unacceptable versions of every scripture? Could they be guilty of driving interested people away from God, instead of to Him, by refusing to accept the wondrous compatibilty there can be between God and science? How different the world might be today if these most vociferous Christians did not treat the scientific community as minions of a dubious (version of )Satan, and point out instead how the Bible can complement the scientific beliefs of the bulk of human population, instead of blasphemously drawing ridicule to the Faith, irregardless of their belief and sincerity. If their version of Satan, imitated from pagan asian beliefs, is truly the opponent of God, could these Christians be the unwitting minions of this creature by insuring millions of souls will doubt the true Faith by these Christians subjecting the Faith to uneccesary ridicule? And if so, what will be their reward for driving potential converts away from Christianity, and eternal life, by their insistence the Earth and and of its live forms were created in six, 24 hour days, that T-Rexes rode on Noah's Ark, and that the flood killed everything else that wasn't on that ship.

I beg to differ with your theory....

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Why did GOD make the World void??? If T-Rex was on Noah's Ark, why did he die out?

I beg to differ with your theory....


Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


If T-Rex was on Noah's Ark, why didn't the Bible mention T-Rex? Why did T-Rex die out? Why does Genesis 1:2 tell us that the earth was made void?

I don't see any reason why religion and science can't be perfectly compatible. God invented the scientific laws that the universe operates by, and if we were able to have a perfect understanding, we'd see how beautifully everything works together and also see how we were meant to interpret some of the things that we now just guess at.

Guess I don't get out much--I've honestly never heard of the "Noah's World" idea of the flood. Kind of reminds me of "Elmo's World" (sorry--some of my kids are preschool) or "Wayne's World" (sorry again--I'm once again referring to SNL!). Since I'd never heard of that interpretation, I've never thought about it. Guess I'll re-read the story of the flood and think about that one. I always thought it was pretty clear, but I guess it could have been referring to the people in that area. Maybe there weren't tons of people in other areas.

DC, I know it's hard not to worry what people think about Christians, but your worries show a lot of emphasis placed in the wrong area. Worry more what God thinks. And worry most about what He thinks about you, about your relationship with Him. Other Christians may not be so intellectual, but if their heart is right before God, then things will work out right for them and for those they come in contact with. If people want to ridicule Christians for some of the reasons you mentioned, then their heart is probably not ready to receive the Lord anyway. If what it takes to get people into the church is to downplay the existence of Satan/evil and ignore some of the usual beliefs about the creation, then they would be coming into the church for the wrong reason. Neither of those things has a direct bearing on accepting the Lord as your Savior, so they shouldn't keep a person away from the gospel. Christians can't be anything other than what we are as individuals, and that's all God has to work with as a body of believers. We can't change our beliefs, either, to bring in those who feel that Satan is getting a bum rap.

Sorry I'm not more coherent--hopefully you get what I'm trying to say, and not on the end of a sharp pointed stick. It's not intended that way.

Ummmm, Triggeroo, perhaps you misunderstood my post. I'm not the one who said, T-Rexes (or another form of large carnivorous dino) rode on Noah's Ark, but many fundamentalist Christians do in their attempt to explain why "dragons" are mentioned in the Bible after the flood. So what would be your explanation if every land animal was killed by the world flood except those on the ark?

To merely dismiss these dragons as "demons" contradicts the Bible as well, for they are often portrayed in a favorable light, such as the dragons who sing praises to God in the book of Psalms (undoubtedly the Seraphim-dragons who sing the same praises in Isaiah).

What the Bible actually says is is that there are heavenly servant creatures called Seraphim, whose name means "fiery flying serpents" in Hebrew, and this might be a better explanation for the "dragons" in the Bible than Ark riding dinos. It might also explain why these creatures are recorded in every human culture, and while they are considered either "Good" or "Evil" in varying cultures, this may relate to God using them to punish the wicked as mentioned in the Bible as well as additional Jewish and Christian scripture.

Shy,
The very fact that the Bible can be just as easily interpreted to be more compaitible with modern scientific concepts begs for Christians to not close their eyes to these remarkable "revelations" that can serve, rather than harm the cause of Christianity, such as the creation epic of Genesis which states more primitive animals were created first, in perfect compliance with evolutionary concepts believed in throughout the world by millions. Perhaps they want to accept Christ as their saviour if so many Christians did not seem to make the utmost efforts to make the Faith seem unbelievable. Why should Christians be so haughty to dismiss this remarkable scientific proof of the authenticity of the word of God, and not use it to spread his Word?

D.C., You're kind of putting the cart before the horse there in your final statements of your closing paragraph. Regardless of the fact that some Christian factions jumped on the bandwagon once Darwin's work was published, your statements are an unfair assessment. Naturalism was a full blown science that had been challenging ideas of divinity for about a hundred years before Darwin boarded the Beagle in 1831. Darwin, like Galileo, was in a hurry to publish his work before others might beat him to the punch. So serious information was released before theologians could wrap their minds around Darwin's ideas. There were plenty of knee-jerk reactions, yes. But anyone who compares Christians of the 19th century to Christians of today has just flat run out of material.

sojourner

Sorry DC but it was a dirrect quote from you.....here is the post again.

I don['t think they died out, I htink they reacted to the changed atmosphere by adapting to it, just like the mammals adapted to the flash ice age by growing fur. Why is there, all of the sudden, new kinds of animals with fur running around in a world that was just dominated by hairless animals that wouldn't possibly survive that environment? Did dinosaurs turn from reptilians with scales into mammals with fur? Answer that. If there was an extinction level event, and all of the dinosaurs died, where did all of the animals which had become perfectly suited for the climate come from? I bet they didn't re-evolve out of the ashes of the vaporized dinos. Mammals couldn't have come from extinct dinosaurs, and birds would have never come from dinossaurs, because 'they all died when the meteor hit'.

There was no ele, there was no evolutionary chain, there is none of that. It is big lizzards, amphibians, and mammals, ultra vital from the pre-flood environment.

Also, I never said there was no atmosphere. That's just rediculous. i said that the cloud bound water in our atmosphere came from undergorund and flash evporated when the barometric pressure dropped so rapidly and the temperature shot up. Before that, there was flash liquifaction, and the sucking under of everything into layers.

I hate being misquoted.

Three and a half months and no reply from the 'scientist'. Go figure.


I guess you can get a Docterate in physics, but not one in common sense. Ya know, that's invisible and faith based too.

Umm.. another common sense way to know it happened is that 3/4 of the above ground rock formations are sedimentary! Meaning they were formed by water depositing minerals.

I have been a Christian since 1971. I became a scientist about 10 years later. I believed the Bible is 100% true since about 1961. I still k now that to be true. You know what works for me? It is not creationism. Jesus said if we lift Him up all people will be drawn to Him. I am not sure if it is important that you think such and such is true about Noah's Flood and are 70% right or 100% right.

There are 25,000 plus feet of preserved and lithified geologic strata representing many different environments, different ages of strata. There are major unconformities separating different Geologic Systems. At one time India had barren and icy conditions somewhat like that of Antarctica. At one time Tennessee was at the Equator. In one core of 3,000 feet transgressive and regressive cycles repeat over and over. That did not happen due to Noah's Flood.

It still blows my mind how people still believe that a flood happened. The cause is so simple it's almost retarded. All that happened was the Mediterranean flooded due to something that was on discovery channel (I am unable to remember the cause sorry). I think it was a massive natural dam from another large lake flooded into the Mediterranean due to heavy rainfall. Noah (who liked animals a lot) felt something was wrong (probably due to excessive rainfall) and built a boat and put on all the animals he could find. Not every single one in the world mind you, for that is impossible (if you would like to challenge me on this I would love some REAL evidence). This flood however did not drown the entire planet; (equally imposable) instead it merely drowned out the surrounding areas. He survived the flood for a number of days and then some holy fanatics came along decided this would make a great story. They then attended the meeting where a group of around 100+ men came together and decided what should go into the bible (this also means that they left large parts out of the bible.) They proposed their story and added in the whole part about "God" telling this animal lover to do this noble deed. It might be just me but something is a little fishy here. (Especially about all those people deciding what went into the bible.) Please, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Read John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study". I got my hands on it, well written, and full of references to other sources.
Or maybe I can try and answer your questions using the book.

I don't believe the idea of a global flood is supportable either scientifically or biblically. For one reasonable critique of the global flood on both grounds, I would suggest Hugh Ross' Reasons to believe site.

See http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologeti...lood.shtml?main

Ross notes the following, for example:



I don't agree with all of Ross' opinions, but he does make a pretty cogent argument against the occurrence of a flood covering the entire earth.

In addition, if we postulate that this flood had to occur in the last 6 to 10 thousand years, there is even more evidence against it. Ice layers in Greenland and elsewhere, for example, go back much further and show no trace of having been immersed to the extent a global flood would require.

If you are talking about the ice layers, please be aware that more than one layer can form in a year.

I have heard it claimed that this can happen, and I don't dismiss the possibility. Still, there are so many thousands of layers in various parts of the world, not only Greenland, none of which show signs of massive infiltration by salt water, that I think we can safely rule out a global flood having occurred in the last many tens of thousands of years. This doesn't even take into account other types of evidence.

Tree rings for example.



from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

show me this tree. I've only heard of trees dating back about 4,000 years. And it's also possible for 2 layers to form in one year (although i'm not going to assume this happened every year).

It isn't "one tree." One looks at a whole collection of trees of varioius ages. By cross comparisons, one can step back into time by looking at older and older trees, including perhaps some that are no longer alive.

See http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/da...dat_dendro.html for a general description.

See http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Dendochronology for a discussion of the use of bristlecone pines in dating. Also see http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/t...ues/timber.html for more discussion. You could google a lot more sites.

If I am not mistaken, there are assumptions involved in using tree rings for dating, and I'm not talking about the joy and pain of young love. It is my (non-expert) understanding that most of those who try to date a tree's age assume that tree rings form only once per year. It is also my (non-expert) understanding that it has been found that multiple tree rings can form in one year. Thus, a tree might have, say, 10 rings, yet only be 5 years old.

I would accept that it is possible a tree could form two rings in one year. However, my understanding is that this is not the usual circumstance by any means. How often and in which species of trees could you document a two-ring year occuring???

The oldest known single tree is called Methuselah and is roughly 4800 years old according to the rings. Another tree, known as Prometheus, was 4950 years old when it was killed in 1964. See http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/bristlecone_pine.htm


Combinations of trees have created chronologies going back roughly 9000 years.
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html

Now, even if there were two rings EVERY YEAR for these trees, which is a wildly speculative assumption, we would still have a chronology going back 4500 with no indication of a worldwide flood in this time. This would certainly rule out the 2400 B.C. date for the flood suggested elsewhere on the forum.



In addition, this is based on ONLY this particular type of evidence. Never mind data regarding ice cores, geological layers, etc., etc., etc.


Recall jack777's post from last month.





I don't see how you can say a global flood actually occurred unless you assume that God deliberately deceived us by creating evidence entirely inconsistent with such a flood. All of the "flood models" make wildly speculative and fantastic assumptions (hydroplates, vapor canopies, changes in the laws of physics, etc., etc.) for which there is no evidence.