50,000 year old forest found, Gulf of Mexico:

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know what data you are talking about, but apparently you have some misunderstanding.

The Instructor

Rock dates, the way we can see more than 6000 light years, the way the microwave background in combination with the Hubble constant gives us a lower bound on the age of the universe. There are reams of the stuff, most of which there cannot be much error about because it's too recent. You need science to be wrong about too much for a young universe, which doesn't have a false history, to be possible.

You didn't get my literary allusion did you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you believe what you read on creationist sites? Wow. It seems RJ is rubbing off on you.
So, what makes you think this tale is 20,000 years old?

I saw reports of Aborigine stories about a flood from several sites. I was more interested in the actual tale than the source, I don't have much time, being at work, so I can spend only a few minutes on such research. The timeline of the flooding of the coast of Australia is not 20K years ago but 10K years ago, still a long long time in human terms.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is because all your speculating didn't happen.

The Instructor

So rather than actually thinking about what I wrote, which BTW is MY original work, you simply ignore it so you don't have to add to your already large load of cognitive dissonance.

The gist of that is you resent people using the intelligence supposedly given to us by your so-called god.

Instead you just want people to go, just trust me, I KNOW what really happened. Right.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I saw reports of Aborigine stories about a flood from several sites. I was more interested in the actual tale than the source, I don't have much time, being at work, so I can spend only a few minutes on such research.

I understand, but my point is the source suggests the tale may be concocted. Also you made a claim that Aborigines have stories connected to a given event, then pick any old story to support the claim. Surely this suggests your claim isn't based on anything in the story itself?

The timeline of the flooding of the coast of Australia is not 20K years ago but 10K years ago, still a long long time in human terms.
Even at 10K it seems far to long for a story to be handed down. But more importantly, I want to know why you think the story comes from that particular event. Do you seriously think that was the only flood ever in Australia, or is there something specific in the story that links it to that event?
And what exactly did happen 10,000 years ago? Was there a sudden massive flood? Was there an inland valley below sea level whose walls go breached by the sea? If so, where exactly?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Rock dates, the way we can see more than 6000 light years, the way the microwave background in combination with the Hubble constant gives us a lower bound on the age of the universe. There are reams of the stuff, most of which there cannot be much error about because it's too recent. You need science to be wrong about too much for a young universe, whi ...[text shortened]... doesn't have a false history, to be possible.

You didn't get my literary allusion did you?

Apparently not.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
So rather than actually thinking about what I wrote, which BTW is MY original work, you simply ignore it so you don't have to add to your already large load of cognitive dissonance.

The gist of that is you resent people using the intelligence supposedly given to us by your so-called god.

Instead you just want people to go, just trust me, I KNOW what really happened. Right.

I have given references, so I don't say you have to trust me alone. There are others that agree with what I present to you. In fact, it is the conclusions of those scientist that I request you consider that I have submitted to you.

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have given references, so I don't say you have to trust me alone. There are others that agree with what I present to you. In fact, it is the conclusions of those scientist that I request you consider that I have submitted to you.

The instructor

rj, would i be correct in saying you think the flood happened around 2000 bc?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
rj, would i be correct in saying you think the flood happened around 2000 bc?

I would say closer to 2500 B.C. 😏

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would say closer to 2500 B.C. 😏

The Instructor

where did all the water go?

Originally posted by humy
where did all the water go?

Where did the water come from? Well there must have been a short sharp and very late heavy bombardment phase, which gives the kinds of effects that feature in the Old Testament and explains craters on the moon! Then afterwards all the excess water was frozen onto Antarctica and Greenland. With quick glaciers to give us nice tidy U-shaped valleys.

Or maybe the world's a little older than that.

Originally posted by humy
where did all the water go?

It is for God to know and you to find out. How much are you willing to pay?

The Instructor

Originally posted by DeepThought
Where did the water come from? Well there must have been a short sharp and very late heavy bombardment phase, which gives the kinds of effects that feature in the Old Testament and explains craters on the moon! Then afterwards all the excess water was frozen onto Antarctica and Greenland. With quick glaciers to give us nice tidy U-shaped valleys.

Or maybe the world's a little older than that.

Where did the water come from?

That is not what I asked.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is for God to know and you to find out. How much are you willing to pay?

The Instructor

I other words, you (and everybody else) cannot explain where it mysteriously all went -yet one more reason to reject your religious belief of the flood as totally absurd.

Originally posted by humy
I other words, you (and everybody else) cannot explain where it mysteriously all went -yet one more reason to reject your religious belief of the flood as totally absurd.

The water is still on the earth, except for what water is in the clouds. The Holy Bible says the valleys sank and the mountains rose.

The waters were standing above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.

(Psalm 104:6-9 NASB)

The earth split into the continents and water filled the gaps to make the oceans and seas. The earth was relatively flat compared to the way it is today after the flood. There were not too many high mountains and the ocean and sea floors were not as deep.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The water is still on the earth, except for what water is in the clouds. The Holy Bible says the valleys sank and the mountains rose.

[b]The waters were standing above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
You set ...[text shortened]... ere not too many high mountains and the ocean and sea floors were not as deep.

The Instructor

The earth was relatively flat compared to the way it is today after the flood.

There is no geological evidence of Earth being much more flat just a few thousand years ago. In fact, the geological evidence clearly shows that the continents where about where they are now and the Earth was not more flat.

The earth split into the continents and water filled the gaps to make the oceans and seas.

This is known as continental drift and has been going on extremely slowly for many millions of years and there was oceans before that. The geological evidence shows that even back then many millions of years ago, when there was only one supercontinent, the earth was not more 'flat' in particular.
If the continents had split rapidly just a few thousand years ago over a distance of many thousands of km, this would have exposed the hot magma under the earth's crust that exists today and the oceanic crust, after it started to form, would not had time to cool down to a greater enough depth to form a crust that is a few km thick today plus the heat from the larva on such a vast scale being suddenly exposed to the entire floor of the ocean would have boiled the oceans which would have then super-heated the Earth’s atmosphere and killed all life. At the vary least, just like in Yellowstone park, if the floor was covered in larva just a few thousand years ago, we should expect to see in the present day active geological activity (in the form of hot-water vents in this case) on just about every square kilometre of the ocean floor area due to it still being in the process of cooling. But we don't see this so clearly this didn't happen.