WOULD NOAH'S FLOOD HAVE AFFECTED SPELEOTHERMS?

badboy

SPELEOTHERMS LIKE THAT IN A CHINESE CAVE GO BACK 224,000 YEARS.

WOULD NOAH'S FLOOD HAVE DISRUPTED THIS PROCESS?

WHAT DO YEC SAY?

jaguarbass

You say what do I say?

I say there is no evidence that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.

Science like religion has an agenda.

The scientific agenda is that we evolved and that the earth is millions of years old.

Some religious groups have an agenda that God created man and the earth is young.

Both groups debunk each other.

But both have an agenda.

Men see what they want to see.

Personally, today I dont believe the bible. But I think the creation scientist and belivers in inteligent design make a much better argument defending their position than old earthers and evolutionist.

So I guess I see a designer God, who appears to have lost interest or at least leaves man to his own devices to wreac havoc on each other.

And I guess if I can see the miricle that our lives are, I can have some comfort in thinking that this trip here is just the begining or one phase of an eternal journey.

Or you can say, today I am going to look at our situation optimistically.

The brain makes better chemicals when you see the glass half full.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

LtCmd.Lore

Jaguar... What does any of that have to do with stalactites, stalagmites or Noah's flood??

jaguarbass

If you read the topic paragraph, I am saying and giving some documentation that I dont believe bad boys age of the speleotherms.

LtCmd.Lore

If you read the topic paragraph, I am saying and giving some documentation that I dont believe bad boys age of the speleotherms.

The age of speleotherms is not determined by carbon or radiometric dating. Sure, it's sometimes used to make it easier for the scientists. (Because they know carbon dating works...)

But the age of a stalactight can be determined by the growth rates.... if it grows a centimeter per year and it's 10,000 centimeters tall then it's about 10,000 years old. It's also impossible for it to grow TOO fast, because if the water is moving faster then it'll take the calcium down with it and the stalactite won't grow. So we know that the process wasn't speeded up before. You can't just turn up the spigot.

It's composition is also effected by the temperature around the year, and this can be used as an indicator of it's age. IE. if we know that there was a huge drop in temperature in the area 3000 years ago, and there is 'cold mark' in the stalacmite near the very tip, then we know that 3000 years ago wasn't a very big part of it's lifespan.
(This is also used in reverse, we can look at the patterns in the stalactite to determine the weather at a given time.)

jaguarbass

Lt.

We have no way of telling the exact age of any formation. The rate of growth depends on several variables such as water supply, rate of flow, amount of material carried, and other factors that can change drastically from place to place as well as from time to time.

The above quote is from a secular site about Carlsbad Caverns.

http://www.rozylowicz.com/retirement/carlsbad/carlsbad-geology.html

I am just making a provacative comment on Bad boys topic.

I dont know if the earth is old or young. I see people argue both ways.

I commend you for thinking and having an oppinion and deffending it.

LtCmd.Lore

We have no way of telling the exact age of any formation. The rate of growth depends on several variables such as water supply, rate of flow, amount of material carried, and other factors that can change drastically from place to place as well as from time to time.

This is correct of course, but who cares what the EXACT age is. I know my house is over 200 years old. I don't know exactly how old it is. It could be 201 years and five months, or 214 years and ten months. But even though I don't know the exact age, I still know that it's over 200 years old.

We know that all over the world there are stalactites that are hundreds of thousands of years old. It could be 320,543 years old, 296,002 years old, or whatever. But just because we don't know the EXACT age, doesn't meen that it could just be a few thousand years old.

I have no way of telling the exact age of my great-grandfather. But that doesn't meen I can just guess that he's younger than 10 years old. Sure rates of reproduction depend on several variables, such as food supply, culture and genetics. But it's physically impossible for him to be 10 years old and reproduce for 3 generations and have an 18 year old decendant.

Variables change, but some things are outside the realms of reality.

PrimateDave

Don't ya just love it when ordinary people question the well researched findings made by scientists who have studied complex natural processes for decades, the same science that has given them the computer that they are typing on, just because some religious nitwits want to believe that some ancient tribal deity did things exactly like their old book says.

If there never had been a Genesis account of the Creation or the Flood in the Bible, not a single so-called Christian alive today would insist that the Earth was only 10,000 years old.

Besides, badboy didn't specify which of the two Biblical Flood accounts he was talking about.

Dave

FairMind

Unlike jaguar bass, I do believe in creation and the Bible but I also believe the Earth is several billion years old. Life in my opinion has been around for millions of years although human beings only six thousand years or so.

I believe in the Bible account of a world flood but believe that only the world of mankind which at the time lived entirely in the Mesopotamia region was completed covered with water. Scientific evidence for example shows that creatures still alive today such as kangaroos, duck billed platypuses, etc only lived in areas like Australia. No remains of these creatures have ever been found in the Mesopotamian region. These creatures did not die in a flood because the portion of the world in which they lived was not flooded by a global deluge.

PrimateDave

FairMind said:

I believe in the Bible account of a world flood but believe that only the world of mankind which at the time lived entirely in the Mesopotamia region was completed covered with water.

The Bible says:

God said to Noah, "I have decided to put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them: I am about to destroy them with the earth." (Genesis 6:13, JPS Tanakh)

"For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-waters upon the earth-to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish." (Genesis 6:17, JPS Tanakh)

All existence on earth was blotted out-man, cattle, creeping things, and birds of the sky; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. (Genesis 7:23, JPS Tanakh)

Of course, everyone is free to believe whatever they want, but the Bible account itself is pretty explicit in its meaning. Believe it 100 percent or not at all, but don't tell me it means something other than what it says.

Dave

WOULD NOAH'S FLOOD HAVE AFFECTED SPELEOTHERMS?

Share this