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.

 

Historical and Scientific Evidence for the Global Flood

page: 2
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
Oh... back to the Himalayas... if there was was enough water to encompass the entire globe 5 miles above current sea levels, what do you think would happen to terrestrial land with that much weight and pressure crushing down on it? I’d love to get your take and see the calculations you based it on.


I am not sure what the exact effect this would have had on the earth. But I know extremely high pressure can catalyze all sorts of reactions... such as the quick formation of crude oil (source). So this high pressure from the flood waters is likely how a lot of the crude oil formed.



completely ignored what I said about the catastrophic annihilation of all land flora and fauna as salt water fills fresh water aquifers


You never said that in your last post. It sounds like you're actually referring to woodcarver's post, which you oddly refer to as your self, indicating that it is one of your alternate accounts.

Regardless, plants have things called seeds that can survive extreme conditions for long periods of time. Seeds grow and become the plants that they came from.

In terms of the fauna, many stories have the animals fleeing to the mountaintops. Many stories also have them gathering in the boat/ark.



How did Noah’s family and any fauna they saved pre-flood survive with no food or fresh water? I’m waiting for you to explain that to the class instead of ignoring the glaring hole in your literal interpretation of scripture.


You're still acting like I am drawing all of this information from just scripture. This isn't just Hebrew history, it is every major culture from history. The Hebrew account has them eat some of the animals on board [Gen 8:20] (they took multiple sets of the "clean" animals [Gen 7:2]). I know you don't actually want answers, you just want to try to catch me being wrong. Unhealthy obsession.




Thanks champ


Hurry, get on your alternate account and give your self a star


edit on 9-4-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Malak777

I was just thinking further about this. I just checked and found out that the impact theory is the most likely of all the moon origin theories.

They call the original plate Pangea. I think that the impact happened there and that the moon was torn from that area. Earth and Theia may be? I am not so sure. I think that whatever it was was a good deal smaller than the earth, perhaps less than a quarter and the molten debris got concentrated into the impact zone. The plate was formed by the volcanic activity of the impact and a lot of new mass from the body that smashed into it. The smaller body was smashed into pieces. The biggest bit became the moon and the smaller bodies became the plate and some also ejected into space as asteroids. The earth would have become molten in a huge area where the impact happened with extra debris smashed into a large part of the northern hemisphere in the main that became, once cooled, the huge Pangea raised plate remnant of Theia that has the same matter origins as the Moon, both the Moon and Pangea being formed at the same time from the same collision. At that time also the planet was still not properly formed with some huge bodies still in the same trajectory throughout the orbit path of what was to become the earth. There would have been many collisions and revisions until the orbiting debris belt became one sphere.

There are still many fragments inthe same orbit as us and sometimes they hit us as meteors. In that sense our planet is still adding to its mass very slightly with every new meteor, even still forming. Why should the forming ever stop, only slow down as the debris of the belt assume the one spherical shape? Orbits and gravity attract debris continually. That is why planets happen because of electro magnetic gravitational forces.

I think the bodies called the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter are a failed planet. I think the gravity of the Sun and Jupiter are interfering with its ability to form into one solid body perhaps and it has stayed fragmented? How come it just so happens to be closest to huge Jupiter with all that extra gravity? It is like Jupiter is counteracting the usual formation by pulling the matter one way as the Sun pulls the other. It makes it impossible for the debris to concentrate and collide in the usual fashion to swirl into a planetery body.

I am just logically pursuing a possible origins scenario. This is all my own imagination at work based on what we understand presently.


edit on 9-4-2019 by Malak777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: trustmeimdoctor

Source: Bible, for starters. Check it out.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: hiddeninsite
a reply to: trustmeimdoctor

Source: Bible, for starters. Check it out.
Hidden in plain sight...



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Hi Coope.

S & F.
Thanks for the thought-exercise.
Don't have anything to add yet, so just have a great day!
edit on 9-4-2019 by Nothin because: sp



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

I've read that. I meant a reliable source.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I actually think there's a reasonable chance some sort of major flood did occur thousands of years ago, simply because the same story is told throughout so many different cultures. I don't think the Earth magically filled with water though, it's more likely the Earth was hit by an asteroid or something and large portions of land were totally covered in water, but it didn't cause total extinction since some places would have remained above water.
edit on 9/4/2019 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


The conventional explanation for these is that glaciers during the ice age moved them, yet the supposed ice age barely reached Europe and the northern tip of the United States.


Which ice age are you referring to? There have been multiple over a period of approximately 1.8 million years, why do you single out one?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join