Lysimachus

There are documented accounts of a global flood from over 200 ancient civilizations. What sources are you reading? You baffle me.

Clivedurdle

The seashell on the Mountaintop

Steno, who researched this, was a devout Christian.

Harry Bosch

Sorry, but I don't think that you understand how seashells "landed on a mountain." The same phenonoma that is behind earthquakes and volcanoes "landed the seashells on the mountain". Sorry, it probably does seem like I am picking on you. You do have the courage to stay and fight - that is good. I don't know you. But I have heard your argument a 1,000 times!

Harry Bosch

Most civilizations have flood myths. This is because most civilizations settle near sources of water. Floods happen near water and are not generally easily explained by ancient people: hence flood myths! The first known flood myth is from the Babyloyians: called Giglamesh. It predates the Biblical flood myth. Both stories are different. However, the biblical flood myth clearly borrowers some of the Giglamesh story (go figure). However, not one of the thousands and thousands of flood myths agree with the one from the bible. Don't be so easily baffled.

Lysimachus

You might be interested in reading some of these "mythical" and "legendary" accounts here:

http://wyattnewsletters.com/babel/ybabel49.htm

The link is only the first page, so remember to click [b]Continue 4 more times to finish the article[b].

Harry Bosch

Its not at all surprising to me that people with no scientific knowledge would invent "the one super god" to explain away the unexplainable. We have far more science and knowledge of the world today than our forefathers. However, I'm sure the majority of people in this country are completely baffled as to why there are seashells on mountains (I promise to not mention seashells again today!)

Amaleq13

This thread seems more relevant to Evolution & Creationism than BC&H so hold on to your socks...swoosh


Do they have any evidence to support their speculative asssertion or is it nothing but an ad hoc fabrication intended to preserve their religious beliefs?

That is incorrect. They are the result of the growth of the tree (hence the name). See here to learn more. Where are you obtaining this bad information?

The irony of this remark, given the source, is actually physically painful. I think my eyes are bleeding. :rolling:

Spaz

Are you crazy?! Mel Gibson made the passion, not Harrison Ford! Harrison Ford was fucking Han Solo man! He's too good for that! Fucking Mel Gibson was just a chubby guy in braveheart!

But anyway...

Lysimachus

Nope, it's been proven that these excavated specimens can be nothing but wood. The lab tests at Gailbraith proved it:

This is a photo of a large deck plank unearthed before Turkish officials by Ron Wyatt and features three distinct layers of wood with glue protruding from the end. It was tested and proved to be petrified wood. It is 18 inches in length and has a few visible nails. It is speculated that this layering of wood is considered "gophering" as described in the biblical account. This deck timber was analyzed at Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee, and was found to have a total carbon content of 0.7100%. From this figure you would deduct the inorganic carbon of 0.0081%, leaving 0.7019% organic carbon, indicating this was once living matter.

Click picture: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/arktimber2.jpg

That's just one specimen. There were several, all from the same site. None outside the site; only within the site.

Critics have tried to say that this cannot be wood because it lacks growth rings. Scientific study confirms the absence of growth rings in plants from what they label the "Carboniferous period":

"There was, as we have already said, secondary bark and wood, similar to that of modern trees but lacking the spring and winter rings which correspond to seasonal alternation of moisture and dryness. This is a further proof that the Carboniferous climate was fairly uniform." (Larousse Encyclopedia of the Earth, p. 369.)

Alright, allow me to clarify. I shouldn't have said "result", but rather a known feature in "Carboniferous" wood. The wood giving the appearance of rocks or stone is a result of weathering--disintegration (mechanical weathering), and decomosition (chemical weathering). Critics have argued that the specimens could not have been wood because they lacked growth rings, but yet even evolutionist geologists all over the world recognize that what they term “Carboniferous� wood HAS NO GROWTH RINGS.

�…If we can imagine horse-tails enlarged from their 3 feet to trees 60 to 100 feet high, we reproduce the Calamites of the Carboniferous forests. In their youth these trees had exactly the same structure as the horsetails; only as they grew older did they acquire wood and the secondary bark that supported them and led the sap to all parts of the plant.

The giant club mosses Sigillaria and Lepidodendron, the main inhabitants of the Carboniferous forest, raised their tufts of leaves 60 to 100 feet above the ground….

To support trunks of six-foot base diameters and 60- to 100-foot height, tissues must increase in thickness from year to year. There was, as we have already said, secondary bark and wood, similar to that of modern trees [b]but lacking the spring and winter rings which correspond to seasonal alternation of moisture and dryness. This is further proof that the Carboniferous climate was fairly uniform.� (The Larousse Encyclopedia o f the Earth, published by The Hamlin Publishing group Limited, London-New York-Sydney-Toronto, copyrighted 1961, revised edition 1972)

…In 1951, Baxter, in his publications of the transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, made something into print which many geologists already knew, which happens to be true all over the world as far as I’ve been able to find. He says, ‘It has been shown that a lack of annual rings is characteristic of wood of all carboniferous plants the world over’. It’s true here; it’s true of the trees I’ve looked at in America and everywhere else. They just don’t have any annual ring system.� (John Mackay, director of Creation Research Pty, Australia)

The following is an excerpt from John Mackay’s speech during his debate at Oxford University sponsored by the Association of Geological and Earth Sciences:

“What causes growth rings? We need to examine this question carefully:

FACTORS THAT REGULATE GROWTH

“The environment. Temperature.

“The environment in which an organism lives plays an important role in modifying the rate and extent of growth…

“The width of trees increases partly by cell division and enlargement of secondary meristematic tissue below the bark. During the cold of winter, cell division and enlargement may cease completely; but during the spring renewed growth occurs. This intermittent growth is influenced by temperature, light and water. The amount of growth may decrease considerably if the spring is cold, if day length is changed, or if a drought occurs. In fact, the width of the growth rings visible on the surface of the cut tree trunk provides a partial history of climate conditions, the spacing of the growth rings of different sizes having been correlated with known periods of drought and cold to provide reliable archaeological dating of various structures, as in the timbers used in Indian pueblos in the south western United States.� (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 ed., Macropaedia vol. 8, p.442)

“The woody seed plants, such as conifers and broadleaf trees, are the most amenable to determination of age. In temperate regions, where each year’s growth is brought to an end by cold or dryness, every growth period is limited by an annual ring—a new layer of wood added to the diameter of the tree… In the moist tropics, growth is more or less continuous, so that clearly defines rings are difficult to find.� (Ibid, Macropaedia, vol.10, p.915)

Temperature, light and water supply are the determining factors of growth rings. When temperatures get low enough, cell division ceases completely. Lack of light or absence of water can also halt growth, which would cause a tree ring to form. This accounts for the fact that the age of a tree cannot be determined by counting rings. Perhaps there was a drought, or several droughts during a season. Or perhaps, as we have just experienced, there was an “Indian summer� after an early frost. In these cases, there may be numerous rings in the single year. But what about before the FLOOD?

The biblical account is very short, but the information is abundant:

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the filed before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground� (Gen. 2:4-6).

There was no rain before the Great Flood, which is one reason the coming deluge, as preached by Noah, was considered so ludicrous by the mass of people. The earth was watered by a mist which “went up� from “the earth�. This indicates a uniformly moist and temperate climate without any “seasonal� temperature changes.

Now take particular note to the fact that the significant amount of petrified wood that was excavated at the Durinapar site (boat-shaped object) contained NO GROWTH RINGS! And what type of seasonal changes occur in eastern Turkey? The regular four seasons that occur in America, Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall! What is a massive structure with no growth rings doing out there? This is proof that it had to have been a structure built in a non-seasonal climate.

Amazingly, one 1931 geologic textbook describes these very conditions when describing the climate of one portion of the “Carboniferous� period which they termed the “Pennsylvanian�:

“Pennsylvanian Climate. Many years ago the plant life of the great coal period was thought to imply a warm to tropical, very moist, uniform climate. More careful study, however, clearly points to a temperate, only relatively humid, but remarkably uniform climate. Some of the criteria favoring this latter view may be stated as follows: The great height and size of the plants together with their frequent succulent nature and spongy leaves indicate luxuriant growth in a a moist and mild climate; absence of annual rings of growth shows absence of distinct change of seasons; the presence of aerial roots by analogy with similar modern plants, implies a moist and warm climate; the nearest present-day allies of the coal plants attain greatest growth in warm and humid climates; at present the greatest accumulations of vegetable matter in bogs and marshes take place in temperate climates where decay is not too rapid and thus suggests a similar climate for the accumulation of the coal deposits; and the remarkable distribution of almost identical plant types in Pennsylvanian rocks from Arctic to tropical regions clearly show a pronounced uniformity of climate over the earth.� (Elements of Geology, by William J. Miller, pub. By D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., NY, 1931, p.352)

Here is what this means: if the timber from our site contained growth rings, then it could not be pre Flood wood from a boat constructed before the Great Flood. And so this could not be Noah’s Ark.

Awww…may I request a physician to heal your wounds? Go for plastic surgery while your at it, that’s my recommendation. I think your eyes were bleeding before, that’s why you failed to properly comprehend the context of my statement. The main emphasis of that statement is to show how many different theories various scholars have come up with regarding the commencing date of the Egyptian civilization. And then to pick one of them as the criteria for judging the age of all other civilization and humankind is not only outrageous, but it demonstrates just how far theorists will go to discredit the biblical account altogether. The fact is, the age of the Egyptian civilization is not set in stone--therefore no contradiction can be invented for pitting against information that lends credence to the biblical narrative.


Contributing Researcher and Editor for "Wyatt Archaeological Research" Foundation
Comp/Network Specialist

Amaleq13

You seem to be responding to a criticism you expected rather than the question I actually asked.

I asked if your 'creation scientists' had evidence for their speculative assertion that "wood that was used preflood was of much different and sturdier consistency".

Just to be clear, you are not suggesting that the Great Flood and Noah's Ark should be dated to around 300 million years ago, right?

Petrified wood is obtained when trees are rapidly buried in a mineral rich environment.

You seem to be reading a great deal into this single passage. It really only supports the notion that God had not yet caused any rain. It does not say that God only used the 'misting system' until the Big Rain nor is there any passage that suggests the concept of rain was unfamiliar to Noah's contemporaries. In fact, that Noah requires no explanation of what God means seems to argue against such an odd interpretation.

Why should we assume this is where the wood was obtained?

Not really. Assuming the truth of what you've said, it really only requires that the wood was obtained from such an environment.

So, to summarize: The absence of growth rings in the discovered wood, suggesting the trees were grown in a non-seasonal climate, is consistent with a speculative reconstruction of Earth's pre-Flood climate based on a speculative interpretation of a single biblical reference that doesn't appear to be supported by the rest of the text.

I am underwhelmed.