Does anyone have a date, exact or approximate, for Noah's flood? This question assumes that Dr. Nay is corrrect in that the flood was a global one.
A date from the Bible and a date from non-Biblical sources. Thanks
When was Noah's flood
-
Philip Palmer
- New Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:54 pm
- Location: Bridgeport, NE
approximate, date for Noah's flood
Adam was created on the 6th day. Genesis 1:26-31 From Adam to Noah. Genesis 5:1-32 If you add up these live spans you will come up with about 1656 years. In Genesis 10: the table of nations,Genesis 11:10-32 from Shem to Abram (name changed to Abraham in Genesis 17:5) Abraham was about 2000 B.C. this put the creation of earth around 4000 B.C. and the flood around 2344B.C. this is a good study to look at. It's kind of hard to follow the genealogy.
-
Dr. John Nay
- Professor
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:34 am
- Location: Prescott Valley, Arizona
- Contact:
Flood - Extant From Scripture
Jukia,
Although many of the articles on the following site are written by creation scientists, not all are and I think you'll find interesting reading:
http://www.icr.org/cgi-bin/search/searc ... erms=Flood
Personally, I don't think information should be discredited based on its' origin, i.e. if it's true, it's true regardless of where it came from & vice-versa.
Can you direct me to specific articles or research, especially those that may be done by other than creationists or that have been published in other than creationist literature?
And while one should not discredit information based on where it came from, truth is truth, you are right. It is clear that ICR has a creationist bias. Don Rumsfeld has his own WMD bias, unfortunatly what he told us turned out not to be the exact truth. A source does provide some basic background info on where to start thinking about the "facts" put forward. I am more likely to believe what I might read in "Science" than what I might read on the ICR website.
And while one should not discredit information based on where it came from, truth is truth, you are right. It is clear that ICR has a creationist bias. Don Rumsfeld has his own WMD bias, unfortunatly what he told us turned out not to be the exact truth. A source does provide some basic background info on where to start thinking about the "facts" put forward. I am more likely to believe what I might read in "Science" than what I might read on the ICR website.
-
Dr. John Nay
- Professor
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:34 am
- Location: Prescott Valley, Arizona
- Contact:
Credibility
Please note that "I am more likely to believe what I might read in "Science" than, ..." relates directly to the credibility (faith/belief) that you place in "Science" relative to elsewhere. Point being, all people are people of faith, and what they believe/don't believe relates directly to where they have placed their faith.
-
Philip Palmer
- New Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:54 pm
- Location: Bridgeport, NE
The Oldest Tree in the World
Creation Magazine 17(3):26, 27 Author: Carl Kerby
On a wild Tasmanian mountain there is a magnificent, recently discovered stand of Huon pine trees that has been called the world's 'oldest known living organism'. Newspaper reports have claimed that what looks like hundreds of trees densely covering one hectare (2.5 acres), is all part of the one tree, since all these 'trees' appear to have identical DNA. Over the years, it is believed, 'snow has forced its branches to the ground, where they have taken root'. (The Sydney Morning Herald, January 28, 1995, page 1.)
It is hard to see how a tree could be older than the time since the biblical Flood, so if its published age of ,more than 10,500 years old' were correct, then this would present a serious challenge to Old Testament chronology. In fact, some media reports claim the tree 'could be 30,000 or 40,000 years old'.
So have these dates been obtained from drill-core sampling of the growth rings in the main trunk? Not surprisingly, the answer is 'no'. The source of the reported 'age' may be a 'guesstimate' based on core sampling a lake below the mountain which contains Huon pine pollen. This is clearly based on far more assumptions and uncertainties than tree-ring dating. Even the apparent absence of DNA differences is not 100 per cent certain, it seems, though probable.
It appears that traditional tree-ring dating on any timber found growing at the site so far gives an age of no more than 4,000 years. This is well within the ages of the oldest living bristlecone pines, which have around 4,600 tree-rings and are still the world's oldest living organisms. (Bristlecone pines are native to the Rocky Mountains of the United States.)
One of the scientists working on the project has issued a statement on electronic mail saying that they had only said it was plausible that these trees might turn out to be part of a much older tree that was now underground, but that this was definitely not a foregone conclusion. He said the media 'decided to run with the story that scientists working in Tasmania have definitely found the oldest living organism in the world. We have made no such claim'.
If there was a global Flood around 5,000 years ago, no living thing should be older than that. There are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is by no means absolute (for example, trees can form more than one ring per year). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the maximum tree ring ages for living trees fall just within this range. Apart from the biblical Flood, there seems no reason why, if certain trees are capable of living for 4,000 years, some should not have lasted much longer.
This is another place
http://www.amwest-travel.com/awt_bristle.html
Do a google search for the world?s oldest tree I think the reason that they are around 4000 years old is because of the flood!
Creation Magazine 17(3):26, 27 Author: Carl Kerby
On a wild Tasmanian mountain there is a magnificent, recently discovered stand of Huon pine trees that has been called the world's 'oldest known living organism'. Newspaper reports have claimed that what looks like hundreds of trees densely covering one hectare (2.5 acres), is all part of the one tree, since all these 'trees' appear to have identical DNA. Over the years, it is believed, 'snow has forced its branches to the ground, where they have taken root'. (The Sydney Morning Herald, January 28, 1995, page 1.)
It is hard to see how a tree could be older than the time since the biblical Flood, so if its published age of ,more than 10,500 years old' were correct, then this would present a serious challenge to Old Testament chronology. In fact, some media reports claim the tree 'could be 30,000 or 40,000 years old'.
So have these dates been obtained from drill-core sampling of the growth rings in the main trunk? Not surprisingly, the answer is 'no'. The source of the reported 'age' may be a 'guesstimate' based on core sampling a lake below the mountain which contains Huon pine pollen. This is clearly based on far more assumptions and uncertainties than tree-ring dating. Even the apparent absence of DNA differences is not 100 per cent certain, it seems, though probable.
It appears that traditional tree-ring dating on any timber found growing at the site so far gives an age of no more than 4,000 years. This is well within the ages of the oldest living bristlecone pines, which have around 4,600 tree-rings and are still the world's oldest living organisms. (Bristlecone pines are native to the Rocky Mountains of the United States.)
One of the scientists working on the project has issued a statement on electronic mail saying that they had only said it was plausible that these trees might turn out to be part of a much older tree that was now underground, but that this was definitely not a foregone conclusion. He said the media 'decided to run with the story that scientists working in Tasmania have definitely found the oldest living organism in the world. We have made no such claim'.
If there was a global Flood around 5,000 years ago, no living thing should be older than that. There are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is by no means absolute (for example, trees can form more than one ring per year). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the maximum tree ring ages for living trees fall just within this range. Apart from the biblical Flood, there seems no reason why, if certain trees are capable of living for 4,000 years, some should not have lasted much longer.
This is another place
http://www.amwest-travel.com/awt_bristle.html
Do a google search for the world?s oldest tree I think the reason that they are around 4000 years old is because of the flood!
-
Skepti Que
- Member
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:57 pm
- Location: California, USA
Sooooooooo,
Let me see if this is right. The oldest tree is a little more than 4700 years old and there is nothing older than that because of the flood so the flood must have been about 4700 years ago, or 2700 BCE. When did Abraham live? When was the exodus from Egypt. I think the timing doesn't work out.
SQ
Let me see if this is right. The oldest tree is a little more than 4700 years old and there is nothing older than that because of the flood so the flood must have been about 4700 years ago, or 2700 BCE. When did Abraham live? When was the exodus from Egypt. I think the timing doesn't work out.
SQ