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.

 

Younger Dryas impact = Biblical Flood

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Here is another hypothesis of a younger dryas impact event.In relation to this event,I have dug down in my yard and have found a black ash layer at 11ft.


craterhunter.wordpress.com...


Wow awesome.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I live in the great central valley of California not too far away from this spot.



craterhunter.wordpress.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sunwolf

I'm in Orange County! Road trip!



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Something happened here in recent geological times,bu I don`t know exactly what.

Driving from Kayenta to Tuba City on the Reservation (Navajo) you can see evidence of a huge flood event where massive amounts of water emptied into the little Colorado.That area is all high country,where would that amount of water come from?



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
The evidence that an extremely low trajectory group of 'objects' (perhaps a comet) impacted the Canadian ice shield at the time of the YD, over Hudson bay, Ontario and the US states bordering the present day Great Lakes, is rather overwhelming. It approached from the direction of the North pole at what is estimated to be only 10 degrees off the horizon and grazed the ice sheet, exploding like a fan all over the continental United states, as far west as California, South to Texas an Louisiana, and South East, to the Carolinas. The Carolina bays are connected to this event as well, as they are shallow depressions mostly oriented South East to North West.

There is another good thread from a few years ago listed Here by Slayer69
That covers a great deal of the detail, and I had some contribution to it as well.

An extremely interesting subject with maximum conjecture. However, something huge did happen then, as the evidence is all over Northern Canada and most of the United States.

S&F for this thread, as it delves into other aspects of this cataclysm. It may, or may not have anything to do with the great floods, but I certainly would not discount it, as this was a major event.
edit on 28-7-2015 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv
The impact that created the Carolina bays has been shown to have happened 780k years ago by Davias & Harris 2015

Saginaw bay impact

and the link to my thread on it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that does not imply that it didn't happen again,

new data pins the YDB event to a hundred year window,

www.pnas.org...

Abstract

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis posits that a cosmic impact across much of the Northern Hemisphere deposited the Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) layer, containing peak abundances in a variable assemblage of proxies, including magnetic and glassy impact-related spherules, high-temperature minerals and melt glass, nanodiamonds, carbon spherules, aciniform carbon, platinum, and osmium. Bayesian chronological modeling was applied to 354 dates from 23 stratigraphic sections in 12 countries on four continents to establish a modeled YDB age range for this event of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. at 95% probability. This range overlaps that of a peak in extraterrestrial platinum in the Greenland Ice Sheet and of the earliest age of the Younger Dryas climate episode in six proxy records, suggesting a causal connection between the YDB impact event and the Younger Dryas. Two statistical tests indicate that both modeled and unmodeled ages in the 30 records are consistent with synchronous deposition of the YDB layer within the limits of dating uncertainty (∼100 y). The widespread distribution of the YDB layer suggests that it may serve as a datum layer.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Triton1128

Great stuff! S/F

I understand the Atrahasis text (another, later, Mesopotamian flood tradition as compared to the Gilgamesh epos) thus, that there were three main civilisations existing in Mesopotamia, stretching from the delta of the great rivers and up into the highlands of today's Turkey.

There were the Sea-dwellers ruled by the god Enki, then there was the inland civilisation on the great Mesopotamian plains ruled by Ellil/Enlil, while up in the mountains towards the Black Sea Anu ruled his civilisation. Anu and Ellil regrets making the humans and seeks to eradicate them in three "waves". Initially they send disease down-river, killing off a bunch of the humans, then they cut off the water supply from Anu's mountain sources and Ellil's canal-systems, effectively shutting great walls/dams/passes, bringing about terrible draught while water built up up-river. Until finally Anu and Ellil (while Enki refuses and warns the humans, the God-Noah-Ark story) agrees to burst open the water supply to effectively bring about a monstrous body of water washing all the humans and their civilisation into the sea.

This seems to fit well with my theory that after the last Ice Age water-levels rose radically over the span of a few millennia, until finally the Bosphorus gave in and the Mediterranean flooded into what we now know as the Black Sea that was earlier a little fresh water pond, turning it into an ocean-grade saltwater sea. The Caspian Sea was also created in this cataclysmic event I think.

The event of this thread fits in nicely to this picture of rapidly rising sea-level and climate change. It all fits. I am willing to bet the Flood stories are true in that there was indeed several cataclysmic events following the Last Ice Age, leading storytellers and chroniclers to write down a bunch of different but similar flood myths all over the globe, from Gilgamesh to Atlantis, to Atrahasis and Noah, and similar stories in the Americas and the far East. So, again, great thread!



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Triton1128
Its hard to date the (when or where)the impact was because it was most likely on top of a mile+ thick ice sheet. ( no impact crater )


No impact crater, but ice is a very fragile crystal, even compacted glacial ice. There is a possibility that the impactor punched a circular ice core out of the glacier and slammed it into the earth underneath, then the debris rebounded in the opposite direction. There wouldn't be a bowl-shaped impact crater, but more like an elephant's footprint, with a circular debris ridge that built up around the ice core when it hit the ground - even thicker on one side if it slid along the ground.

There's just such a circular ridge in Illinois. It's about 60 miles wide around the Chicago area, with the thickest part of the ridge being the west/southwest side. If the impactor debris rebounded from that, it could have dropped somewhere east/northeast of Lake Huron.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: charlyv
The impact that created the Carolina bays has been shown to have happened 780k years ago by Davias & Harris 2015

Saginaw bay impact

and the link to my thread on it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that does not imply that it didn't happen again,

new data pins the YDB event to a hundred year window,

www.pnas.org...

Abstract

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis posits that a cosmic impact across much of the Northern Hemisphere deposited the Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) layer, containing peak abundances in a variable assemblage of proxies, including magnetic and glassy impact-related spherules, high-temperature minerals and melt glass, nanodiamonds, carbon spherules, aciniform carbon, platinum, and osmium. Bayesian chronological modeling was applied to 354 dates from 23 stratigraphic sections in 12 countries on four continents to establish a modeled YDB age range for this event of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. at 95% probability. This range overlaps that of a peak in extraterrestrial platinum in the Greenland Ice Sheet and of the earliest age of the Younger Dryas climate episode in six proxy records, suggesting a causal connection between the YDB impact event and the Younger Dryas. Two statistical tests indicate that both modeled and unmodeled ages in the 30 records are consistent with synchronous deposition of the YDB layer within the limits of dating uncertainty (∼100 y). The widespread distribution of the YDB layer suggests that it may serve as a datum layer.


Possibly, but there are many scientists that claim the evidence shows the event(s) happening around the time of the receding Ice Sheet. As said, maximum conjecture, but we know something happened. Some of the vectoring showed that the impactors came in a wave , perhaps 30 minutes apart, and the Earth rotated underneath the incoming stream causing up to 3 large splash areas which border each side of the present Great Lakes , and the Great Lakes impact being the largest of all. I love this subject, but real hard core science has not embraced it as it should, and I bet there is a lot more to discover.





posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

Can you provide more data on tha impact crater?

Pics or Google cordinates or both or anything please?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

Thanks for the info, but that isn't really an answer. These trees trunks penetrate multiple layers, not just the roots, which is what he seems to address.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

One problem is that any site that doesn't support evolution is labeled as "propaganda", and "not scientific", even if that isn't the case.

Much of what you consider layers left over time, others consider layers left as sediment, as we can see in local floods. Since no one alive observed them forming, it's presumptuous to assume one is right, and the other wrong.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: autopat51

If it did, it prouced no lava or any other geological evidence. We are very sure that the vast eruption at Yellowstone was around 640,000 years ago



originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Barcs

Can you admit that the only reason you don't accept a global flood as possible is because it's in a Bible story? If it was everywhere else and not in the Bible, I'd bet you would be far more willing to accept it.


Personally the reason I dont accept it is because there is absolutely zero evidence - not even in the Bible. The Biblical story was based on earlier Mesoptamian stories which, IMO, describe quite well a tropical cyclone making landfall.

There is of course plenty of evidence of local floods.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Yet some geologists disagree. Not the majority, maybe, but some. And, really, when studying rocks, and trying to sort out very old events, there is some guesswork involved. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider various interpretations.


Like PeterV said, as far as the people of each region were concerned, the whole world flooded, but it didn't.
one the best pieces of geological evidence for no global flood is the recent work confirming the surface ages for the desert pavements in the western Mojave, ie calico hills, which has been set greater than 100k years. These rocks have been exposed to the air and sunlight and cosmic rays for over 100 k years, never covered in water.


These deposits are highly denuded and dissected by arroyos that have surfaces armored with chert. Surface erosion rates based on cosmogenic Be-10 concentrations in stream sediments range from 19 to 39 m/Ma, with an average of 30.5 +/- 6.2 m/Ma. Surface boulders have Be-10 TCN ages that range from 27 ka to 198 ka, reflecting significant erosion of the Calico Hills. The oldest boulder age (197 20 ka) places a minimum limit on the age of Yermo deposits. Depth profile ages at four locations within the study area have minimum ages that range from 31 to 84 ka and erosion rate-corrected surface exposure ages ranging from 43 to 139 ka. These surface exposure ages support the view that the surfaces in Yermo deposits formed during the Late Pleistocene to latest Middle Pleistocene


Link to Perdue paper

Its clear from the astrophysical work of Napier, Clube and others, that a very large comet ( more than 100km diameter) entered the inner solar system, more than 25kya, and started a process of disintegration, that is in its last stages today with comet enke being the last major cometary fragment left. By the time of the YDB event the meteor showers produced by the debris stream, had already started to work their way into the mythos of people all around the world, with some recording the astronomical events in rock art.
Over the next several thousand years, these events became terrifying enough to start people around the whole world on the path to celestial calendars, the first henges were such calendars, and later rebuilders forgot why they were built in the first place.

When we get to the mid Holocene, the incidence of celestial shenanigans seems to ramp up to point there are several major events around the world over several thousand years.
Noted geologist M.A. Courty, and Harvard archeologist H. Weiss, have noted several incidences in their studies of Mesopotamian sites, over the last 4 decades.
In the Syrian highlands, they have found several successive "destruction" cycles, where villages and countryside burned, which is not that unusual, except here there is something odd.
At sites, starting about 6-8kya, they see a well defined community structure, with small towns of mud brick buildings dry farming cereal grains and using local shrub woods for fuel. Then they will see a destructive fire layer, where the scrub brush has burned away, then the whole area is covered with a "wash" of amorphorous carbon. They call it a wash because it fills in the low spots in the landscape. People don't leave, but rebuild, now here is the kicker, they start to use the amorphorous carbon as fuel, as all the scrub has been burned away. They use this fuel for a few years until the scrub grows back. Now, Ive been a wildland firefighter and have seen some big fire and been to areas with huge fires, fire so bad that after 100 years nothing still grow there, and never has a carbon layer like that been laid down, to where you could come back next season and dig up the carbon and burn it as fuel.



articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...










edit on p0000007k49742015Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:49:19 -0500k by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)

edit on p0000007k49742015Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:49:55 -0500k by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
One problem is that any site that doesn't support evolution is labeled as "propaganda", and "not scientific", even if that isn't the case.


They are labeled propaganda when they do not use the scientific method to back their claims. They misuse it and misunderstand it to support a worldview. If you want to learn science, go to the source. I wouldn't go to science site to learn about religion, just like a wouldn't go to a religious site to learn science... or a car repair site to learn PC tech support. It makes sense to read science from real science sites that source REAL science experiments and observations.


Much of what you consider layers left over time, others consider layers left as sediment, as we can see in local floods. Since no one alive observed them forming, it's presumptuous to assume one is right, and the other wrong.


Back to ol', you weren't there, so you don't know argument. Were you there during the great flood? Alright, then your argument is debunked. Surely you can do better than that. We observe sedimentary layers as they form today. We measure the decay rates of isotopes. A tree growing through various layers isn't evidence of a great flood. There is no evidence in science for such an event, only isolated floods in different areas at different times.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Barcs

Can you admit that the only reason you don't accept a global flood as possible is because it's in a Bible story? If it was everywhere else and not in the Bible, I'd bet you would be far more willing to accept it.


Personally the reason I dont accept it is because there is absolutely zero evidence - not even in the Bible. The Biblical story was based on earlier Mesoptamian stories which, IMO, describe quite well a tropical cyclone making landfall.

There is of course plenty of evidence of local floods.


That isn't accurate. That Mesopotamian stories are similar isn't evidence that they came from the Biblical stories. There is evidence, of course, but some don't want to admit to it.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Cosmic events have no relevance on whether or not there was a global flood. The dating methods assume known quantities at some starting point, and those cannot be known. The articles are quite interesting, though, so thanks.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
One problem is that any site that doesn't support evolution is labeled as "propaganda", and "not scientific", even if that isn't the case.


They are labeled propaganda when they do not use the scientific method to back their claims. They misuse it and misunderstand it to support a worldview. If you want to learn science, go to the source. I wouldn't go to science site to learn about religion, just like a wouldn't go to a religious site to learn science... or a car repair site to learn PC tech support. It makes sense to read science from real science sites that source REAL science experiments and observations.


The scientific method? No one has used that for any of the guesswork involved in much geological study. When there can be no observation, there can be no claim that the scientific method was used. Scientists cannot observe long term geological events. Plenty of scientists do believe the evidence supports a global flood, and dismissing them out of hand isn't reasonable. Nor is claiming their work isn't "real science".


originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Much of what you consider layers left over time, others consider layers left as sediment, as we can see in local floods. Since no one alive observed them forming, it's presumptuous to assume one is right, and the other wrong.


Back to ol', you weren't there, so you don't know argument. Were you there during the great flood? Alright, then your argument is debunked. Surely you can do better than that. We observe sedimentary layers as they form today. We measure the decay rates of isotopes. A tree growing through various layers isn't evidence of a great flood. There is no evidence in science for such an event, only isolated floods in different areas at different times.


You brought up the scientific method, and now you complain when it's pointed out that it cannot be used for such work? Observation is key. Surely you can do better than that.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
How can you date whats apparently been washed into the Red Sea? I'd start by examining the sediments of the seabed/seafloor of the Red Sea to determine exactly when this (these) flood(s) happened? Has there ever been conducted such an investigation? To the Red Sea seafloor I mean?
edit on 30-7-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: rephrased



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: punkinworks10

Cosmic events have no relevance on whether or not there was a global flood. The dating methods assume known quantities at some starting point, and those cannot be known. The articles are quite interesting, though, so thanks.

Cosmic events are the cause of the so called "biblical floods", the earth's surface is 3/4 water, so any impacting body is most likely going to hit an ocean, and when one does it throws an incredible amount of water and water vapor into the air, hundreds of millions of tons worth.
That water has to rain back out of the atmosphere at some point, and one of the researchers involved in the Holocene Impact Work Group, modeled what would happen if the proposed burkle crater impact did infact occur.
Their models showed it would take 10 days to a month for the water to all rain out, sound familiar.
And the bible narrative itself, holds clues that lead in the direction of an impact.

The priestly (Elohim) source of Genesis 7:11;8:1-2 describes the nature of the flood waters as a cosmic cataclysm, by the opening of the springs of the deep and the floodgates, or windows, of heaven.

and

After Noah and the remnant of animals were secured, the fountains of the great deep and the floodgates, or windows, of the heavens were opened, causing rain to fall on the Earth for 40 days. The waters elevated, with the summits of the highest mountains under 15 cubits (22 feet 6 inches) of water,[29] flooding the world for 150 days, and then receding in 220 days.[30]

en.wikipedia.org...

When the shockwave from the impact passed through shallow aquifers, natural springs would have burst out of the ground, hence the " fountains of the great deep" passage.

The effects of the YDB event would not have been so dramatic for the people of the near east, except for the possible "rain of fire" as the ejecta fell back to earth. But those event would have been remembered in the tales of old, and woven into the newer narratives in some fashion.

The ejecta blanket for that event covers one third of the planets land surface, with the heaviest deposits in the western hemisphere and northern Europe.


The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis posits that a cosmic impact across much of the Northern Hemisphere deposited the Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) layer, containing peak abundances in a variable assemblage of proxies, including magnetic and glassy impact-related spherules, high-temperature minerals and melt glass, nanodiamonds, carbon spherules, aciniform carbon, platinum, and osmium. Bayesian chronological modeling was applied to 354 dates from 23 stratigraphic sections in 12 countries on four continents to establish a modeled YDB age range for this event of 12,835–12,735 Cal B.P. at 95% probability. This range overlaps that of a peak in extraterrestrial platinum in the Greenland Ice Sheet and of the earliest age of the Younger Dryas climate episode in six proxy records, suggesting a causal connection between the YDB impact event and the Younger Dryas. Two statistical tests indicate that both modeled and unmodeled ages in the 30 records are consistent with synchronous deposition of the YDB layer within the limits of dating uncertainty (∼100 y). The widespread distribution of the YDB layer suggests that it may serve as a datum layer.





Previously linked PNAS paper



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join