"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
15 million year old marine fossils. That's the point you seem to be missing.

I believe someone dropped a few zeroes around here. 15 million years ago is the Miocene epoch of the Tertiary era. I can't think of any fossils from that era that were upthrust to mountains that late. The youngest mountains I know of (Himalayas) were formed in the late Cretaceous.

150 million years ago is the Cretaceous and there's lots of marine fossils from then. More plausible is 250 million years ago, during the great mountain building episodes at the end of the Permian, with material from the Devonian/Missisippian/Pennsylvanian ending up lifted high in the sky.

The Ouichata orogeny comes to mind: www.britannica.com...

Yeah... picky little point but it caught my eye.

reply to post by Byrd


Eh, it further reinforces the point that the mountains are far older than humanity. Also, I'm happy you're back on here Byrd. It's good to have someone who actually knows what they're talking about (I mean, I only know what I'm talking about half the time, the other half I have to actually do some research before my posts. It's an improvement from my youngling days when I only knew what I was talking about 1/8th of the time without research).

I mean, honestly, dusty's point requires ignoring everything about geology in favor of saying that mountains suddenly rose up within human history in an event for which there is no evidence.

reply to post by dusty1


Yes, but there's no amount of reasonable change within the time period we're talking about that can account for a global flood. And, once more, unless there was a massive change in the elevations the land areas would have remained under the water. Were there this sudden change that normally is measured in the span of millions of years within a year, there would be evidence. First the sea beds would have to rise as the mountains sank, then the mountains would have to pop back up while the sea beds went back down.

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by OhZone

 

It doesn't move for the same exact reason the ice cube does but it's basically the same principle... The internal deformation of the ice due to the weight gives the surface less friction enabling the glacier to move....

Did you even read the 2 paragraphs that I posted - twice?????
You are all hung up on last centuries Theories.
No one in our recorded history has ever seen a glacier move - other than down a mountain side.
Logic alone should tell you that a massive sheet of ice will not move itself thousands of miles across a continent.
It will Not gouge out deep lakes.
Rocks are much harder than ice and will scratch the ice, not the other way around.

There is actually No evidence that a large sheet of ice covered the lands they theorize.
Let's say you are walking around a 100 acre piece of land in Wisconsin which allegedly was covered by ice.
What evidence could you find to prove this?
What tells you that ice moved thru here and melted?
This being about 12,500 years +/- ago. (The time period I am discussing)

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by OhZone

 

It doesn't move for the same exact reason the ice cube does but it's basically the same principle... The internal deformation of the ice due to the weight gives the surface less friction enabling the glacier to move....

Did you even read the 2 paragraphs that I posted - twice?????
You are all hung up on last centuries Theories.

Did you even read the 2 paragraphs that you posted??? Do you even understand any of it? Do me a favor and read it and stop being lazy by copy and pasting things you don't understand..... Sorry if "God did it" is not an acceptable answer for me....

Jheated, God did it, isn’t what I’m saying. You see, as I said somewhere above, we are talking about 2 different scenarios here. God didn’t do it. The theory that a rogue cosmic body came thru is much more logical. I tried to show evidence for this. But you are arguing as if I am saying that god did it when I am Not.

And I am NOT supporting the whole Earth being covered with water all at the same time. I am saying catastrophic deluge moving something like today's storms as well as a pelting of metioric debris. I am saying catstrophic upheavaling of Earth due to a magnetic tug of war between Earth the other other cosmic body.

Yes, I read what I posted…which item is based on a supposed ice sheet and the difficulty
It would have moving as previously thought.
I’m not saying that there was such ice sheet, I am saying “If there was”.
And IF there was, The bottom of the ice would melt from its own weight and therefore would be soft and mushy on the bottom and therefore incapable of grinding up rocks as it moved IF it moved..

I amended my above post since you posted.

Just read this article. It tells more than I can write here. It is a synopsis of a book, which I have. It is available from book sellers: Might even be available to read on line from google or open library.
www.knowledge.co.uk...

Ice age was invented. There is NO evidence for ice covering and no evidence of any moving ice sheets. None, zero. It is all someone’s imagination.

Yes darwin, mountain can rise suddenly and land can sink suddenly. We are seeing today sink holes in some areas appearing in minutes, and land rising from the sea overnite. And we are all aware of the effect of the moon on our planet. Magnify that effect by what it would be like if a body the size of Jupiter came by at the same distance.

Originally posted by OhZone
Jhea
Ice age was invented. There is NO evidence for ice covering and no evidence of any moving ice sheets. None, zero. It is all someone’s imagination.

You do realize we see ice sheets moving today, right? And we have plenty of geological evidence for ice ages, as well as chemical (ice probes) support. Even the fossil record matches it as we know animals adapted to sustain greater colds. And lastly, we know the temperature on earth for the past 740,000 years...we KNOW the ice ages happened.

So saying there is no evidence ("zero") only shows that you never really bothered even looking at the provided evidence.

reply to post by OhZone


I checked your source and it said "Return To The Creation Concept" so I made the assumption that this is where you are picking up your information from since it said return it means that you must have started there first... The glaciers don't need to be smooth on the bottom for them to move, the deformation of the ice could happen in different spots within the glacier....

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Kailassa

 

The ark would no longer have been a ship. It would have been a necessary resource.

I agree with that, the Ark would have been a huge lumber yard.

I doubt any of it would have survived

Well if one believes the story, the receding water may have deposited tons of logs all over the hill side. Just saying.

One very very large problem with the flood is the redistribution of wildlife and domestic type animals. I have thought about all this at length, giving the flood story its chance. One idea out there is that a large flood that couldnt have covered the whole earth but took out a section of the earth known as "earth" to Noah. There are several words used there in Genesis for earth.

When Cain was said to have been driven out he said.. "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth;....

The first word for earth is " adamah" ...and it looks like Adam-ah or the land of Adam as land area and the other word there is "erets"- whole earth. So it looks like it could read that he was driven out of the land of Adam of his father and had to move out to other areas. My point is that Adam-ah may have been a total loss during the flood while people in rest of the earth we able to get to high lands. And this is what most of the old tales world wide say that at some point there was a flood so great that few lived and those that did went to the high ground.

Another thing about the creation/flood story is that the Genesis account is clear that there were already other people living on the earth outside of Adam-ah.

Oh but there are some problems when we try to reconcile the Geneisis accout with the accounts of the others world wide.

Just a few.....Genesis say the waters came up 18 cubits and yet all the mountains were covered and everything died. (If you look into this please note the use of Adam-ah and erets for earth althoug at times this offers no help)
Logic just screams out here that if this story has basis in fact it has to be talking about an area of the earth Adam-ah and couldnt mean the mountains of the whole earth. Besides are we to believe that all of the nations and tribes around the earth that say thier people fled to the mountains are collectively mistaken?

Here are the main points..

Genesis-all the mountains (at 18 cubits) were covered and all things all flesh died. "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground (Adam-ah is used here althought the general word for earth is also used at times)
General Others Flood Stories-allmost all were killed save those that got to the mountain tops and that wasnt many. In fact even many of these tales say that their people were kiiled off save for two or three that became the founders of current.

Solutions-Noah took many people on the ark with him known as clean beasts. " Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female". He just didnt take them in two by two but some by sevens...the "clean beasts" may mean other humans of other tribes. Yes I know how this sounds but in its way may lend to the veracity of the story.

Or

The Noah story had a limited view, as did other survivors, considering only that Adam-ah was totaly flooded while others in the world, erets, we able to escape to high ground along with the local animal life, Noah taking only the animals of Adam-ah into the ark with him. One must ask here if Noah had taken representative of many tribes on the ark with him why its this not reflected at large in the many world wide tales of surviving the flood?
Yours.

Wait... 18 cubits of water covered the mountains?

Am I misreading what you've posted there, or is that really what that statement means?

'Cause... a cubit is a foot and a half. Twenty-seven feet of water covered the mountains?

I PROTEST AGAINST ANY AND ALL ATTACK THREADS ON RELIGION, ATHEISM, CREATION OR EVOLUTION!

THESE ARGUMENTS ARE USE AND WORTHLESS!

I HOPE OTHERS WILL DO THE SAME!

reply to post by MrXYZ


Mr XYZ, the only ice that is moving today is sliding down a mountain. NONE are moving on flat land.
Furthermore, as I understand it the ice sheet GREW, it supposedly accreted new snow every winter
until it covered a large area, and then as the climate got warmer it melted. No moving. This is nonsense.

Science is learning new thngs all the time.
Check out this site for ridiculed and then vindicated science.
amasci.com...

Creationism or Evolution, Flood or no flood, belief or no belief

Non of that matters in what this scientist is saying because he is an idiot!

He has forgotten one BIG number in his equations.

The X Factors.

Disease - it has been shown that many diseases are biologically grown by man, but let's say a disease is not grown by man, is he saying that chemistry (which is usually thought of as man made) can't happen naturally creating new diseases?

Population - X factors are huge here since not all of human history is written. Lets first start with the idea of a population being a certain size at a time and thus should have grown from there, which would cause our population to be much larger.

Examples:
Ice Age- I'm sure the last couple of ice ages would have caused many deaths through out human history

Drought/Famine- According to his theory these don't kill large populations of people, tell that to people in africa

Astrological Events- Such as Meteors can and have caused both of the above.

Disease/sickness- Ever heard of the black plague, small pox, or even the common flu? These have killed off massive populations through out time.

The point is that population growth is far faster than many think, but has been regulated to a point by the above.

I don't care what your beliefs are, his theory holds zero water.

The whole silly flood story makes way more sense when you realize that the peoples it derived from considered only themselves human.

reply to post by Byrd


You can find here an amazing hike with the Burgess Shale at the top of the Rockies. 505 million years ago.

www.pc.gc.ca...

People tend to think in modern terms when looking at the flood story.

When modern people say global they know that the world is a lot bigger then a few hundred miles. People back in the biblical period had no concept that the world is as big as it is. A giant flood for them would be global for them. They had no concept of North or South America, Australia and just about 90 percent of the rest of the world.

A truly global flood is unlikely in todays world. In biblical times a global flood would encompass a far less amount of land then we would think and to them it would be entirely possible.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Oh! it was 15 cubits. Here is another translation...The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.*,*

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Mr XYZ, the only ice that is moving today is sliding down a mountain. NONE are moving on flat land.
Furthermore, as I understand it the ice sheet GREW, it supposedly accreted new snow every winter
until it covered a large area, and then as the climate got warmer it melted. No moving. This is nonsense.

Science is learning new thngs all the time.
Check out this site for ridiculed and then vindicated science.
amasci.com...

edit on 29-12-2010 by OhZone because: (no reason given)

Clearly you've never been to Antartica which is mostly flat...and guess what, ice is moving there all the time

Hell, we even have clear signs like rocks with crevasses that could have been only formed by ice under immense pressure.

Originally posted by Becoming
People tend to think in modern terms when looking at the flood story.

When modern people say global they know that the world is a lot bigger then a few hundred miles. People back in the biblical period had no concept that the world is as big as it is. A giant flood for them would be global for them. They had no concept of North or South America, Australia and just about 90 percent of the rest of the world.

A truly global flood is unlikely in todays world. In biblical times a global flood would encompass a far less amount of land then we would think and to them it would be entirely possible.

And BINGO, we have a winner!!!

It's pretty clear the bible was talking about a horrible LOCAL flood (for which we have evidence) and then combined it with a story. Anyone who takes the bible (or any other religious scripture) literally is a fool who ignores the level of knowledge the people had back then. A global flood is beyond ridiculous and coming up with crazy, not backed-up, arguments to "make the global flood story fit" is kind of sad given that we live in the 21st century and can dismiss all those claims scientifically.

How brainwashed do you have to be to completely ignore evidence and facts just to protect your fantasyland picture of the world???

Here is something very interesting....pay close attention.

Section 7 is broken up in three parts that seem to repeat the same info with diffrent details. This fact alone looks strange.


1.
(section1-7:1-6) Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.

used here- Male-איש 'iysh
Female-אשה 'ishshah

This section looks to mean "man beast" or male and female 'iysh and 'ishshah a more specific term (בהמה bĕhemah beast * this is not the only place where beast is used for humans) Its hard to see a mistake in this simply becouse iysh and ishshah are terms used only for humans.


2.
(section 2- 7:7-12) Gen 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
Male-זכר zakar
Female-נקבה nĕqebah

This section only calls for 2x2 and the 7 figure above is missing here maybe pointing to the idea that animals are all that is mentioned here and repeted without key information to note that the 1st section has to do with taking humans on board (and birds by 7) the 2nd section with animals only (2x2 (x7 is left out)) and the 3rd section has to do with the total of all living things.



3.
(section 3- 7:13-16) Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

Male-זכר zakar
Female-נקבה nĕqebah

Here "all flesh" is the term used and so a more generic term (בשר basar-flesh of any kind) and the general term for male and female is used.


feel free to comment here as this is a cursory look. Not trying to pound anything into stone here.