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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
There is evidence of several floods. One about 5,000 years ago (or 5,000 B.C. I can't remember) and another about 12,000 years ago. The one 12,000 years ago coincides with the Clovis Extinction Event and there's carbon dating of a vast amount of glacial meltwater dumping into the Gulf of Mexico.




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

But why do they all match at one point in time? In addition, if there were other floods, then why didn't they record them?
Also, one thing in common with these flood stories is that they were basically up high to the mountains or heavens, not the variety that is only knee-deep.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Roots don't need air to survive. They need oxygen yes, but they can get that from the water itself.

Only the trees themselves, i.e parts above ground need air(CO2)
.



Even flood-sensitive trees will escape injury if flood waters recede in seven days or less. But, if flood waters cover roots of sensitive trees for longer periods, injury symptoms such as leaf chlorosis (yellowing), downward curling of leaves, leaf drop, and branch dieback may occur. And in a few extreme cases, entire trees may die.



Saturated, poorly-drained soils may pose the greatest hazard for trees, particularly if this waterlogged condition persists for an extended period. If oxygen cannot penetrate to roots, trees may exhibit symptoms associated with flooding. Warm, dry weather is the only cure for this chronic and potentially deadly soil condition. Another hidden danger resulting from flooding is the deposition of sediment over tree roots. Silt and sand deposited to a depth greater than 3 inches also may impede movement of oxygen to tree roots, especially on small or newly-planted trees.



Except in cases where flood waters persist for months or where trees have been injured by the sheer force of rushing water,


www.ipm.iastate.edu...

The university of Iowa strongly disagrees with you. I strongly encourage you to try out some good old fashioned due dilligence and double check to see if your assumptions match with known facts before you jump the gun and post information that only aligns with things ICR wants you to believe as opposed to what is actually true.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: skalla

As long as it's a root system where they can sufficiently seek out nutrients and support each other, then they or a small part of the system can survive, for a limited time. In fact, it's possible that the Pando trees' root system was the only one that managed to do so(and grew back?), the rest died.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: wmd_2008

But why do they all match at one point in time? In addition, if there were other floods, then why didn't they record them?


Maybe because writing has only been around for about 5200 years.there are records of many floods after the Sumerians first introduced their script in 3200 BCE. Even at that, other places didn't immediately develop a written language. MesoAmerica for example independently developed writing in isolation but not until around 600 BCE. Waiting spread out from Mesopotamia but it wasnt an immediate transfer of knowledge. Some areas followed suit quickly while others were a little slower to introduce it.


Also, one thing in common with these flood stories is that they were basically up high to the mountains or heavens, not the variety that is only knee-deep.



I think the key part of that statement is Flood Stories. That's all they are, stories.they just do to match up with the evidence I. He geological record and stratigraphy.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Do you have evidence of these other flood stories?



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888

No trees or root systems are going to survive for an entire years submerged to the depth alleged. Te biblical narrative. The amount of silt deposition along with how much water would be in the soil means that the root systems would be cut off from 02 long after the flood waters subsided from the depths you claim they were at which is literally miles high. Tat doesn't even account for where all te water came from or went. Te concept of this being logical and likely is pure fantasy.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Roots don't need air to survive. They need oxygen yes, but they can get that from the water itself.

Only the trees themselves, i.e parts above ground need air(CO2)
.


Said flood cleared mountain tops... that tree would have been dead...




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

Given that there's more body of water on earth (70%) than land and that mountains (especially the tallest one) was at one point at a much lower elevation than it is today and sea basins at higher elevation, and given that there are deep abysses/caverns underneath the earth full of water, the Biblical description Noah's Flood or the Great Flood of Noah is quite accurate.

In fact if both the ice caps on both poles are melted and the amount of water underneath the earth burst forth and mountains are lowered and basin elevated, there's enough water to flood the entire earth - especially 3000 or 4000 years ago.

Even today, it's known that:


If all the ice melted, north and south pole, Antarctica, Greenland, and all, sea levels would rise between 175 and 225 feet.Coastal areas would essentially disappear, and roughly a third of the earth's existing landmass would be submerged.


wiki.answers.com...

As further proof of this are the different remains of sea life forms found on the top of mountains. Indicating that at one point in time they were under water.

Of course to the ones who don't believe the Bible, there's no amount of evidence that can change their mind.

edit on 21-8-2014 by edmc^2 because: cc



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

The flood didn't last the entire year. According to both the Chinese and the Bible, it "came on" for 40 days. Now the Bible says that the flood water lasted for 150 days, so that or 190 days should be the maximum number.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
No. See here:

water.usgs.gov...



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
According to wiki, the roots system of the Pando trees is massive(enough for 40,000 trunks). It seems to me what happened is that the flood almost destroyed the root system, then it grew back. Otherwise, how does one explain that the root system is 80.000 years old, yet the trunks are only 130 years old? Did the Natives cut all of them off?



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888

I would say the problem with this is that the roots would likely die as well if they have no source of oxygen or sunlight...

Im no tree expert of course... but as far as I know the roots would have died if the top of the tree wasn't exposed to these elements of life...




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
There is no evidence of a massive singular global flood period. I don't understand why people point to local events and insist that it's The Flood of Noah's time.

What follows is opinion and not to be taken as evidence, more like food for thought.
If there was ever a worldwide flood event as described by the bible, wouldn't you think that people would have and still be finding non fossilized marine life remains on mountaintops or in places hundreds of miles from the sea?
edit on 8/21/2014 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/21/2014 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: typos



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2
No. See here:

water.usgs.gov...



Thanks but the illustration you've provided is misleading as it doesn't account for the elevation of mountains and sea basins.

That is, if you level out the earth surface, and spread the water as a "thin film" the amount of water will cover the entire earth at a depth of thousands of feet.

Viewed in cubic miles coupled with surface plane depth / elevation (3000 to 4000 years ago) then you'll have a much more accurate picture.

Oceans, Seas, & Bays 321,000,000 1,338,000,000 -- 96.54
Ice caps, Glaciers, & Permanent Snow 5,773,000 24,060,000 68.6 1.74
Groundwater 5,614,000 23,400,000 -- 1.69
Fresh 2,526,000 10,530,000 30.1 0.76
Saline 3,088,000 12,870,000 -- 0.93
Soil Moisture 3,959 16,500 0.05 0.001
Ground Ice & Permafrost 71,970 300,000 0.86 0.022
Lakes 42,320 176,400 -- 0.013
Fresh 21,830 91,000 0.26 0.007
Saline 20,490 85,400 -- 0.007
Atmosphere 3,095 12,900 0.04 0.001
Swamp Water 2,752 11,470 0.03 0.0008
Rivers 509 2,120 0.006 0.0002
Biological Water 269 1,120 0.003 0.0001

water.usgs.gov...



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

No, the root is different. WE don't actually need sunlight to survive. It's the specific elements of the air that we need(for energy, for example, we eat sugar because we need the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen), and it's only because we evolved(supposedly) that way.

As long as there's a mechanism in the root that can separate the oxygen from water, then they don't really need the oxygen from the air at all.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888

That's the problem though... a tree is not equipped to extract what is needed from just water... a tree thrives on carbon dioxide, which means said tree would have to extract what it needs from dissolved CO2 in the water... and leaves can not do that from just H2O

It also needs sunlight, and if this global flood occurred this tree would not have had access to sunlight underwater...




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

There is simply not enough water on the planet for a global flood. You evidence consists of reading Genesis and accepting it at face value. it's all rather quite silly.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Actually there might be... apparently there are vast underground water lakes all over the world...

Of course this would mean all the ice caps would have to melt and all these lakes would suddenly bust open all at the same time... highly unlikely

and it certainly doesn't make a lick of difference in proving noahs flood actually happened




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: hydeman11

Given that there's more body of water on earth (70%) than land and that mountains (especially the tallest one) was at one point at a much lower elevation than it is today and sea basins at higher elevation, and given that there are deep abysses/caverns underneath the earth full of water, the Biblical description Noah's Flood or the Great Flood of Noah is quite accurate.



SO SO WRONG water covers 70% in AREA there is NO were near enough water to cover the Earth to the height a small hills never mind mountains!!!

As illustrated HERE



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join