It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
to the lack of evidence crowd, i ask if there IS any evidence of flooding where peoples have this myth?

specifically, flooding that is referred to, in the myth?

as to the moon that has been brought up, there are myths that it was not there and suddenly it was.
how essential is a moon like ours, to intelligent life? or to life in general?
(maybe another thread subject)

i can understand the people that reference geology for evidence, as they find the KT boundary in the strata after 65+- ya.

why not the flood?

lol, who knows? why even start something like that in the first place?

it's not like flooding suddenly started, for the first time, right?
aren't we supposed to have a collective memory? instincts?

the evidence is in ourselves.




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset at me.

ciao.


The Bible is a STORY book written over a 1500 yr period by about 40 people, it proves NOTHING and like I have said and SHOWN quite clearly MAN created god!!!!

Lots of THEM
edit on 28-8-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
But the mountains were at a lower elevation and the sea floors were shallower.

In other words, due to tectonic plate movements the mountains are pushed up from a lower elevation. While sea floors are depressed by the weight of water that is above the crust - the thinir the crust the deeper the depth.


Aside from the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever to suggest all mountains were drastically lower 4000 years ago, there's another major issue with that statement. The youngest mountain range on earth is the Himalayas. They started to rise around 25 million years ago. They began to form around 50-70 million years ago. Sorry, but 4000 years ago the earth was virtually the same as it is today as far as mountains and oceans go. Mountain ranges do not form overnight and there isn't a single one that has formed in under 4000 years. A tiny island forming off the coast of Pakistan in shallow waters isn't even close to the same thing. Maybe in 20 million years it'll be something more than a large rock in the ocean.


edit on 28-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


Text The Bible is a STORY book written over a 1500 yr period by about 40 people, it proves NOTHING and like I have said and SHOWN quite clearly MAN created god!!!! Lots of THEM

Of course that is just your opinion. Right?
You say that the bible was written over 1500 years period by about 40 people. What you did not say is over what span of locations the contents were found. Of course this literature was not all found bound up in a nice little box tucked away in the kings closet but was independent literature found in vast locations and different times; yet they connect in thought but have differing stories. Can you give us another example of this common occurrence? But then if this was a conspiracy and all forgery then you may have a good case except that it would be very difficult to have over five thousand manuscripts in different locations and time periods in several languages along with dead sea scrolls of several languages confirm that forgery. I find it much easier to simply believe the manuscripts. When you declare that it is all clear that man created God, who then made man? If this is quite clear, as you have stated, then clarify it to us.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Man is a product of evolution god(s) are a product of man's need to explain why things happen hence sun, moon & rain gods etc.

After all why can't this so called super being get the same message to all corners of the pale blue dot we live on SIMPLE because the people who made him up lived in a small part of the world.

Every race on the planet has god & creation stories they are NEVER the same so they can't all be right can they BUT they can ALL BE WRONG!!!



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


Text After all why can't this so called super being get the same message to all corners of the pale blue dot we live on SIMPLE because the people who made him up lived in a small part of the world.

Your subject was the bible and not other religions. The Judaio/Christian religion can refer to present day understanding of Christianity or it could reference the original Christianity before Hadrain (135 CE) by whom it was stolen. Regardless of that recorded history the biblical God remains the same. Granted it has been twisted to suite the minds of men but the literature is basically the same.

The biblical message as well as the bible has reached all corners of the world even though it is not accepted all over the world. You are correct in that the original Christians were localized at one time but the Christian God was long before Christianity came upon the scene. The same God was recorded to have been from the beginning of our civilization and not simply biblical.

As far as getting the same message out to the pale blue dot, It has already been done many years ago but not all people on the same blue dot will believe that message. But then that is by choice that they all are not on the same page. This thread shows the very same thing. Not everyone believes the same thing. Some believe in secular sciences and some believe in christian or conservative sciences. Both have their own theology. Each will call their own understanding facts in denying the other. Of course the secular sciences have the advantage today because almost all universities are better than 90 percent atheist of gnostic. By holding the cards they will not tolerate diversification as that would undermine their monopoly of the game in life. So the game continues and just like politics the tides will one day turn and another kid on the block will become the neighborhood bully. But that is the nature of people.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
I find it much easier to simply believe the manuscripts. When you declare that it is all clear that man created God, who then made man?


?--->

Singularity--->

Big bang--->

Gravity and eventually other fundamental forces--->

Hydrogen/Helium nuclei---->

Stable atoms--->

Stars--->

Supernovae--->

Heavy elements--->

2nd gen stars/planets--->

Chemical evolution--->

Biological evolution--->

Eventually...Apes--->

One Ape dreams up a way of extorting and controlling the more gullible members of his species--->

God is born.





edit on 28-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeedeI find it much easier to simply believe the manuscripts.


The intellectual path of least resistance is not something to be admired.


When you declare that it is all clear that man created God, who then made man?


If god created man, who then made god?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


The intellectual path of least resistance is not something to be admired.


i might have to steal that for my signature.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: wmd_2008

Your subject was the bible and not other religions. The Judaio/Christian religion can refer to present day understanding of Christianity or it could reference the original Christianity before Hadrain (135 CE) by whom it was stolen. Regardless of that recorded history the biblical God remains the same. Granted it has been twisted to suite the minds of men but the literature is basically the same.



I'm a bit befuddled at your cavalier attitude and apparent lack of reading the bible to come to that conclusion. There is a rather clear delineation between the god of the old testament vs. the god preached about by jesus. The OT god was a childish, vindictive mass murderer whereas the god of Christ was a loving and merciful entity.



The same God was recorded to have been from the beginning of our civilization and not simply biblical.


Exactly WHO'S civilization are you referring to? Sumerian and Egyptian religion and writing go back for over 2 millennia prior to proto-Hebrew coming into play as a written language.



Some believe in secular sciences and some believe in christian or conservative sciences. Both have their own theology.


Care to elaborate on that? what exactly is the theology of science? aside from working with verifiable and repeatable results which is something I haven't seen christianty pull out of their hat in lieu of a rabbit in nearly 2 millennia.



Each will call their own understanding facts in denying the other.


except that only science deals in facts, faith isn't a fact.



Of course the secular sciences have the advantage today because almost all universities are better than 90 percent atheist of gnostic.


I think its fair to say that all institutions of learning are gnostic. Do you know what gnostic means? Its root is from Greek, gnostikos, and means learned.


By holding the cards they will not tolerate diversification as that would undermine their monopoly of the game in life. So the game continues and just like politics the tides will one day turn and another kid on the block will become the neighborhood bully. But that is the nature of people.


If you don't want to study actual fact based systems there are many alternatives in the form of Christian based universities. the above is just bull poo if you really believe it about higher education.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao
to the lack of evidence crowd, i ask if there IS any evidence of flooding where peoples have this myth?

specifically, flooding that is referred to, in the myth?


Sure, but that isn't evidence that a global flood occurred. For a global flood, the evidence would have to exist EVERYWHERE, not just in a few spots around the world. Is it really that surprising for the flood myth to really just be a tale of a local flood that was larger than normal and flooded the goat herder's (noah's) known world? I can't imagine that a goat herder would have a terribly large picture of the world. Why is common sense and Occam's Razor thrown out the window when speaking about the bible?


as to the moon that has been brought up, there are myths that it was not there and suddenly it was.
how essential is a moon like ours, to intelligent life? or to life in general?
(maybe another thread subject)


Myths are myths. A myth is just an ancient testimonial. Testimonials aren't scientific evidence. The moon is VERY essential to life on this planet since the moon was present for the entire 3 billion years life was here and directly influenced the way that life evolved on the planet. If the moon wasn't here life would have evolved in a different direction, but don't assume that life couldn't evolve on the planet without the moon.


i can understand the people that reference geology for evidence, as they find the KT boundary in the strata after 65+- ya.

why not the flood?


Why not indeed.


lol, who knows? why even start something like that in the first place?


Because it's called looking for evidence. You know damn well if geologic evidence existed for a global flood in the geologic record similar to the K/T boundary, you would be singing it from the mountaintops. So don't pretend like it's no big deal that people look for evidence of the flood in the geologic record just because your side ended up in the no evidence camp.


it's not like flooding suddenly started, for the first time, right?
aren't we supposed to have a collective memory? instincts?


Right flooding has happened before, but not global flooding. Those are two VASTLY different doomsday scenarios. One wipes out ALL life on the planet meaning it will take millions of years for life to reach the present day diversity; the other destroys a local ecosystem but it doesn't take long to repopulate and rebuild afterwards.


the evidence is in ourselves.


This is a cop out answer said by people who don't have any real evidence.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


One Ape dreams up a way of extorting and controlling the more gullible members of his species---> God is born.

And now we are right back with the monkey chasing it's tail and trying to prove that he was there 65 million years ago. God or no God the monkey is still there and 65 million years ago cannot be proven that 65 million years ago even existed. That is unless we find the monkey calendar and then we would have secular monkey science as the bully on the block. Same ole story with the same ole players.

As with the dinosaurs being dated. Found out that they couldn't use radiometric dating so just chalked it up to a little iron (wrong type at that) and give it a date to make everyone smile and get the ole grant money rolling in. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck -- I know -- let's call it a frog. ---- So a frog is born?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They evolved from apes or proto-apes. Your second paragraph doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you could post a link to your claims instead of your personal inane rambling. I mean its not like there aren't other isotopes we can test with longer half-lives than carbon-14.

How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?
edit on 28-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


One Ape dreams up a way of extorting and controlling the more gullible members of his species---> God is born.

And now we are right back with the monkey chasing it's tail and trying to prove that he was there 65 million years ago. God or no God the monkey is still there and 65 million years ago cannot be proven that 65 million years ago even existed. That is unless we find the monkey calendar and then we would have secular monkey science as the bully on the block. Same ole story with the same ole players.

As with the dinosaurs being dated. Found out that they couldn't use radiometric dating so just chalked it up to a little iron (wrong type at that) and give it a date to make everyone smile and get the ole grant money rolling in. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck -- I know -- let's call it a frog. ---- So a frog is born?


did you miss all of the posts from peter vlar and hydeman? they've put a spectacular amount of factual scientific data into this thread. id actually like to take a moment and thank them for the efforts theyv taken to educate the less knowledgable members among us. thats gotta be some exhausting homework they did for our benefit. whew!



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They evolved from apes or proto-apes. Your second paragraph doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you could post a link to your claims instead of your personal inane rambling. I mean its not like there aren't other isotopes we can test with longer half-lives than carbon-14.

And you can prove that humans came from your proto -apes? You must have another secular theoretical science -- Something like Darwinism? Can you use your isotopes on that? Get real.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They evolved from apes or proto-apes. Your second paragraph doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you could post a link to your claims instead of your personal inane rambling. I mean its not like there aren't other isotopes we can test with longer half-lives than carbon-14.

And you can prove that humans came from your proto -apes? You must have another secular theoretical science -- Something like Darwinism? Can you use your isotopes on that? Get real.


Sure, there is plenty of independent evidence from many different scientific disciplines that corroborate that humans evolved from apes. From fossil evidence, to dna evidence, to geologic evidence. Denying its existence doesn't automatically make it cease to exist. But this thread is about the global flood happening, so I'm not going to clutter it up with all that evidence. If you are ACTUALLY interested (and not just argumentatively deflecting) you can do your own independent research, or (since it can be tough to know where to start), you could PM any number of us for the evidence, which we'd gladly provide. There are also untold number of evolution threads on the creation and origins forums, so you can look at them for the evidence as well.

As to Dawinism, science has moved past Darwin's theory of evolution. Scientists have discarded many parts of it and have updated and evolved their view of how evolution works. It would be best for you Creationists to stop hanging around in the mid-1800's, because science has left you guys WAY in the dust.
edit on 28-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


One Ape dreams up a way of extorting and controlling the more gullible members of his species---> God is born.

And now we are right back with the monkey chasing it's tail and trying to prove that he was there 65 million years ago. God or no God the monkey is still there and 65 million years ago cannot be proven that 65 million years ago even existed. That is unless we find the monkey calendar and then we would have secular monkey science as the bully on the block. Same ole story with the same ole players.

As with the dinosaurs being dated. Found out that they couldn't use radiometric dating so just chalked it up to a little iron (wrong type at that) and give it a date to make everyone smile and get the ole grant money rolling in. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck -- I know -- let's call it a frog. ---- So a frog is born?


Normally I would retort with the logical flaws of your argument and try to show you what th actual science behind the theory is but after reading thru your increasingly belligerent responses there's no point except to point to your replies as a grade A example of the failings of educators. Te absolutely frightening level of pure ignorance and bloviating flatulence on display here simply elicits my utmost sympathy or you. You truly have no idea at all what you're talking about and your fear of learning anything that may differ from your theological leanings is just pure sadness.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   


I'm a bit befuddled at your cavalier attitude and apparent lack of reading the bible to come to that conclusion. There is a rather clear delineation between the god of the old testament vs. the god preached about by jesus. The OT god was a childish, vindictive mass murderer whereas the god of Christ was a loving and merciful entity.

And you sir are so brilliant as to judge a God? What arrogance from a creature who perishes in a whisper. You will have your say when faced by this childish, vindictive murderer.


Exactly WHO'S civilization are you referring to? Sumerian and Egyptian religion and writing go back for over 2 millennia prior to proto-Hebrew coming into play as a written language.

Your lack of knowledge reveals that it is yourself that does not understand that the Hebrew God is from before creation.


Text Care to elaborate on that? what exactly is the theology of science? aside from working with verifiable and repeatable results which is something I haven't seen christianty pull out of their hat in lieu of a rabbit in nearly 2 millennia.

You have said that you have not seen christianity produce verifiable and repeatable results for nearly 2,000 years. I invite you to read the following source.

www.cpals.net.../topic/10089-famous-scientists-belief-in-creator/



I think its fair to say that all institutions of learning are gnostic. Do you know what gnostic means? Its root is from Greek, gnostikos, and means learned.Text

You quite conveniently left out atheist which is the main factor in secularism.


If you don't want to study actual fact based systems there are many alternatives in the form of Christian based universities. the above is just bull poo if you really believe it about higher education.

You have no idea who or what I study. Your judgment shows your intent. Your science is to make a duck into a frog and I don't think it will happen.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede


And you sir are so brilliant as to judge a God? What arrogance from a creature who perishes in a whisper. You will have your say when faced by this childish, vindictive murderer.


whats he gonna do, murder us? that would be ironic.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


As to Dawinism, science has moved past Darwin's theory of evolution. Scientists have discarded many parts of it and have updated and evolved their view of how evolution works. It would be best for you Creationists to stop hanging around in the mid-1800's, because science has left you guys WAY in the dust.

And now we see the truth of the matter that you hung your hat on. We now can call it discarded and updated instead of just bad and wrong science. That is more telling than you spouted before. If you are still young enough you might see that your secular accepted dating is another hat hanger. Look for it in the near future.




top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join