"The Whole Silly Flood Story", page 19

privacy

Pages: << 16 17 18 19 20 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 08:07 AM by zptramel

Originally posted by puneetsg

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Show me a history book, one that is older than the Bible, or shut up.

You are funny

I said the Bible was the oldest history book that we have and you clowns jump right up and say there are older texts.
I didnt say the Bible was the oldest text, I said it is the oldest 'history' book that we have.

Firstly, if you have the audacity to call the Bible a 'History Book' then these ancient texts have as much, if not more, of a claim to that title. These texts contain several historical accurecies, such as celestial events etc that have been verified by modern scientists. None of these cultures consider their sacred writings to be anything other than HISTORY. And as it is the bible is full of inconsistencies, giving two DIFFERENT versions of the same event etc. How can it be historically accurate?? What makes a Christian's claim more valid than the claims of these other cultures?? And as for the NT, hell i know people here on ATS that put up a very convincing and sound argument against the very existance of a historical Jesus!

Read, research, rethink.

Sound advice. I suggest you follow it.

You two are so quick to defend your beliefs that you totally ignore what I wrote.

You do not KNOW me or my beliefs. So i would appreciate it if you were less presumptuous and kept your thoughts on others to yourself. Frankly i do not care what you think of me, but i detest people who try and label me, and you have the gall to do it over the net, from the 2 lines that i wrote!

haha i love you! this made my morning (from 8am to 8:07am to be exact!)

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 08:43 AM by dusty1

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

I keep telling you, and you keep asking for the same answer, even though I have given it to you numerous times.
Once more the oceans rises and falls in mm, cm, & m.
The ocean increases or decreases the volume in liters.
Come on we learned this stuff in middle school.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Or do you disagree?

You are still proving trying to be a smart-ass, while proving you've got no understanding of the topic.

You have shown even you don't know what you meant by "500 metres of water."
You appear to still have trouble understanding distance and volume measurements.

Sea-level is measured using a measurement of distance, but it can be any unit of distance which is relevant, not just the metric scale, and, being a comparative measure, can only be measured in relation to a fixed object or another sea-level measurement.

Ocean volume can be measured by any unit of volume measurement, not only litres. The American measure used is still the imperial cubic mile.

Perhaps Blue Jay's 500 meter change is refering to the sea level curve.

This figure compares the Hallam et al. (1983) and Exxon eustatic (global) sea level reconstructions for the Phanerozoic eon. The Exxon curve [1] is a composite from several reconstructions published by the Exxon corporation (Haq et al. 1987, Ross & Ross 1987, Ross & Ross 1988). Both curves are adjusted to the 2004 ICS geologic timescale.

hanerozoic_Sea_Level.png" target="_blank" class="postlink">Phanerozoic Sea Level

Oil companies like Exxon use sequence stratigraphy to try and reconstruct global seal level change. Sea level change, effects where oil companies look for hydrocarbons.

I keep hearing that there is "no sedimentary evidence" for a global flood.

There is massive sedimentary evidence of global marine transgression, and I already provided some unbiased sources to show it.

According to uniformitarianism it assumes the earths strata had to develop over millions of years.

I believe otherwise.

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 09:04 AM by MrXYZ

reply to post by dusty1

You are drawing the wrong conclusions from the stuff you quote. Not one thing you posted states there was a global flood

Here's how plate tectonics work: LINK

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 02:51 PM by Kailassa

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Kailassa

However tectonic plate movement does not affect global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres, not kilometres.

eustatic sea level 1. n. [Reservoir Characterization] ID: 10663 Global sea level, which changes in response to changes in the volume of ocean water and the volume of ocean basins
Link

Causes of Eustatic Sea-Level Change Changes in eustatic sea level arise from either changes in the volume of ocean basins or changes in the volume of water within those basins. The volume of ocean basins is controlled primarily by the rate of seafloor spreading and secondarily by sedimentation in ocean basins
Accomodation

If sea floor spreading is not caused by Plate Tectonics, then what causes it?

Are you still claiming a global flood once covered the mountain-tops? Isn't that what we're discussing here?

In the case of a global flood, changes to the configuration of the ocean floor will not affect sea-level, unless they are large enough to push land that was under-water above the water.

This global flood is believed by bible literalists to have occurred only 4000 years ago. We know the mountains we see today were in existence 4000 years ago, and the bible agrees there were mountains before the flood.

As Mount Everest is nearly 9 kilometres above sea-level, and its height has not changed significantly in the last 4000 years, the ocean flooding the Earth would have to have been 9 kilometres deeper than it is today. For trenches forming in the sea floor to lower this water level at all, material from the bottom of the sea floor would have to be removed. However the creation of a chasm through plate movement does not remove material, it only rearranges it. When the whole surface is deeply inundated with water, rearranging the sea-floor via the opening up of trenches does nothing more to decrease the global sea level than moving the water-covered rocks around on the floor of an aquarium will change the aquarium water-level.

The situation is quite different in the case of an ocean surrounded by land. Chasms forming in a non-global ocean can change water level. To understand the difference better, imagine yourself in a bath. You can change the bath level by moving into different positions unless you are fully immersed. If you are fully immersed, no amount of movement will change the water level. The flood you claim happened fully immersed the earth.

Of course there is another mechanism be which eustatic sea level can be altered, and that's by a change in the volume of water in the ocean. Perhaps you should try running with an earlier suggestion of mine, which was that Noah and his family got thirsty and drank it all up.

Do you understand the difference between Eustatic Sea Level and Relative Sea Level?

You guys really have trouble comprehending measurement, don't you?

Any measurement of sea-level, whether local, steric or eustatic, (no need for the capitalisations,) is a relative measurement.

The term "eustatic" refers to global changes in the sea level due to water mass added to (or removed from) the oceans (e.g. melting of ice sheets). The term "steric" refers to global changes in sea level due to thermal expansion and salinity variations.
...
Local mean sea level (LMSL) is defined as the height of the sea with respect to a land benchmark,
en.wikipedia.org...

See what each measurement has in common? Each one is calculated in reference to another measurement. A measurement of eustatic sea-level can only be a measurement of change in sea-level, and can never be an absolute measurement.

Do you now understand that eustatic sea level is a measurement of relative sea-level?

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 03:15 PM by Kailassa

Originally posted by JBA2848

The world-wide occurrence of marine fossils in high elevations can explain why stories of a great flood are found in the folklore or legends of ancient peoples in diverse places around the globe. It is understandable that primitive peoples had no other conclusion to draw than that a deep flood, one like no other in their experience, must have put those seashells way up there. They did not know about mountain building and the geological processes that can raise fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock strata to great heights.
antiquity.ac.uk...

It's sad to realise there are even people in a forum like this, people with access to the knowledge and understanding so many have worked to make available, who still cling to this primitive thinking.

And all because they believe in an omnipotent creator who will only allow those who deny scientific fact to enter heaven, and who will subject everyone else to "the final judgement" and then burn everyone but the chosen few in a lake of fire for eternity.

These people really have had the fear of god put into them.

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 03:33 PM by Kailassa

Originally posted by dusty1
Perhaps Blue Jay's 500 meter change is refering to the sea level curve.

Blue_Jay didn't mention change, only 500 metres of water.
Of course, if you've read enough bible apologetics, you learn how to add, subtract or twist enough bits to make anything sound reasonable.

This figure compares the Hallam et al. (1983) and Exxon eustatic (global) sea level reconstructions for the Phanerozoic eon. The Exxon curve [1] is a composite from several reconstructions published by the Exxon corporation (Haq et al. 1987, Ross & Ross 1987, Ross & Ross 1988). Both curves are adjusted to the 2004 ICS geologic timescale.
hanerozoic_Sea_Level.png" target="_blank" class="postlink">Phanerozoic Sea Level
Oil companies like Exxon use sequence stratigraphy to try and reconstruct global seal level change. Sea level change, effects where oil companies look for hydrocarbons.

If you believe Blue_Jay was referring to a change in sea-level of 500 metres, would you like to explain how that change, (I presume you mean increase,) covered an 8800 metre high mountain?

I keep hearing that there is "no sedimentary evidence" for a global flood.
There is massive sedimentary evidence of global marine transgression, and I already provided some unbiased sources to show it.

There is no evidence of a marine transgression which entirely, or even nearly, inundated the Earth.

According to uniformitarianism it assumes the earths strata had to develop over millions of years.
I believe otherwise.

A creationist chooses belief over evidence. What a surprise ...

edit on 5/3/11 by Kailassa because: formatting

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 03:39 PM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by Kailassa

Sea-level is measured using a measurement of distance, but it can be any unit of distance which is relevant, not just the metric scale, and, being a comparative measure, can only be measured in relation to a fixed object or another sea-level measurement.

Ocean volume can be measured by any unit of volume measurement, not only litres. The American measure used is still the imperial cubic mile.

I agree with you, so what point are you trying to make again?

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 03:47 PM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

True, but I also understand F=ma, Force equals mass times acceleration. The amount of water mass times the acceleration of that mass would equal the force at which the ark was hit by water. Toothpicks and diced meat still stands.

That would be one huge wave, like a world wave of water making a tidal wave look like a wave in a bathtub.

edit on 5-3-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 04:30 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Yep....and yet there's no geologic evidence of it. Again:

Question 1: Where is the geologic evidence of a global deluge?
Question 2: Where is the evidence that there was a massive reduction in gene pool sizes across every "kind" at the exact same time?
Question 3: Where is the evidence that the boat in the story could actually be sea worthy?

reply posted on 16-3-2011 @ 07:03 AM by madnessinmysoul

I'm still waiting for all of that evidence that supposedly supports this downright silly and physically impossible story. Genetics and geology should provide ample evidence, yet not a single piece of such evidence has been provided.

reply posted on 10-5-2011 @ 04:46 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

I've waited a while for an answer from you on this...guess you've been busy in other threads. Just wanted to send a friendly reminder to you:

Question 1: Where is the geologic evidence of a global deluge?
Question 2: Where is the evidence that there was a massive reduction in gene pool sizes across every "kind" at the exact same time?
Question 3: Where is the evidence that the boat in the story could actually be sea worthy?

reply posted on 10-5-2011 @ 04:52 PM by MrXYZ

*crickets*

reply posted on 16-5-2011 @ 04:49 PM by madnessinmysoul

Just another reason why this idea is impossible...if there was a wave from all of the water in the world (just the water in the world right now) and taking a conservative estimate of the rate of acceleration based upon the average depth of water on our planet...

The wave would hit with a force of around 2.700455576 10^23 newton...or more than enough to shatter Mount Everest...aka, a lot more than a wooden ship could survive.

I might have made an error in my mathematical calculations there. But I did my best .

1400000000000000000 metric tons were used as the approximate weight of all of the water on Earth.
3794 m was used as the depth for the wave acceleration calculations.

...the rest can be derived using F = ma

reply posted on 7-6-2011 @ 12:55 PM by madnessinmysoul

Just wanted to provide yet another resource on the silliness of the great flood. It's a YouTube video, but due to the nature of some of the language contained I'm going to link it here and provide a disclaimer that you click at your own risk in terms of language.

Amongst the problems dealt within the video are:

General animal population issues for the size of the ark, even when narrowed down as far as possible
Food
Poop
The 'babies' argument
Genetic diversity following the flood
Animal behavior upon the ark
Food following the flood
And why 'magic' doesn't count as a rebuttal.

There's also a great comparison to a zoo and to the Titanic in terms of size and population.

reply posted on 29-3-2012 @ 09:17 AM by dontneedaname

Not sure if anyone mentioned this -- a search couldn't find it...can't seem to figure out if it is possible to search within a thread...

It's flooding right now all over the world....a FLOOD of VIRTUAL MONEY / Dollars / Euros...sometimes it's called Quantitative Easing...

history doesn't always repeat, but it often rhymes..and when the "spigots" are turned off.....

reply posted on 30-3-2012 @ 06:51 PM by Seede

Been reading some of your posts and find that a lot of folks do have reasons to believe and a lot of folks have reasons to disbelieve Noah's flood story. Some years ago I wrote a book which never had published. It was called "Giants on My Earth." Back in that day I did not have the marvelous internet to do my research and had to go to the libraries. Was real fortunate to have one of the worlds finest Hebrew libraries in the country and one of the most considerate Jewish librarians to help me with the Hebrew to English translations. I am not Jewish by the way so I do admit that I had to believe much of what she read to me.

Research led me to an old American novelist named Mark Twain. I didn't realize that Twain wrote non fiction at that time and was taken aback by some of what he wrote. Seems like Mark Twain took a trip throughout the middle East and wrote his adventures in a book called "Innocents Abroad." In this book he says that he came into this Arab village and -----

"Back yonder, an hour's journey from here, we passed through an Arab village of stone dry-goods and boxes (they look like that) where Noah's tomb lies under lock and key. [Noah built the ark] Over these old hills and valleys the ark that contained all that was left of a vanished world once floated. I make no apology for detailing the above information. It will be news to some of my readers, at any rate. Noah's tomb is built of stone, and is covered with a long stone building. Bucksheeth let us in. The building had to be long, because the grave of the honored old navigator is two hundred and ten feet long itself. It is only about four feet high, though. He must have cast a shadow like a lightening rod.
The proof that this is the genuine spot where Noah was buried can only be doubted by uncommonly incredulous people. The evidence is pretty straight. Shem, the son of Noah, was present at the burial and showed the place to his descendants, who transmitted the knowledge to their descendants, and the lineal descendants of those introduced themselves to us to-day."

I was amazed at what I read. Here were people who believed that Noah not only lived and died but he was a giant of a man at that. Course I he hawed as I began to digest this but then as I wrote this in my book, I began to wonder just why these Arabs believed that here lay Noah and that his grave was over 200 feet long. Even if it was not true why would these people believe it was true? Why would these Arabs believe such a thing as this? During Noah's day the Hebrew literature tells us that giants did exist in Noah's day and that the giants were destroyed by Noah's flood.

Of course this is only going to agitate some of you all the more but just think for a moment. Just maybe, even though this might be the rantings of some of the Arabs, there is a grain of some truth in what they tell us. Out of tradition there just might be some truth. Then again maybe they were pulling ole Mark's leg. Who really knows?

reply posted on 5-4-2012 @ 03:30 AM by Sparta

Sorry didn't have the time to read through 19 pages but I thought I'd get this in, if you do the research there is much evidence to prove that there was a great flood, just the main one I'd quickly get in is the bloody hundreds of cities beneath sea level now.. Japan, Cuba, all over the Mediterranean.. plus more just do a good hour of research and hell even just on here you can find a crap loads of it..

As for the story of Noahs ark.. well I'm no Christian by any means but to me it just describes the flood from one mans perspective who happened to be religious, did he take every single animal on that boat.. I doubt it, maybe all the animals he could find and just umped himself up for a good story.. I'd believe that.

edit on 5-4-2012 by Sparta because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-4-2012 @ 03:35 AM by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Sparta
Sorry didn't have the time to read through 19 pages but I thought I'd get this in, if you do the research there is much evidence to prove that there was a great flood, just the main one I'd quickly get in is the bloody hundreds of cities beneath sea level now.. Japan, Cuba, all over the Mediterranean.. plus more just do a good hour of research and hell even just on here you can find a crap loads of it..

As for the story of Noahs ark.. well I'm no Christian by any means but to me it just describes the flood from one mans perspective who happened to be religious, did he take every single animal on that boat.. I doubt it, maybe all the animals he could find and just umped himself up for a good story.. I'd believe that.
edit on 5-4-2012 by Sparta because: (no reason given)

You are confusing evidence of LOCAL floods with evidence for a single global flood. And those underwater cities are easily explained through plate tectonics.

reply posted on 5-4-2012 @ 03:41 AM by someguy0083

I think people forgot how the flood story came to be. The flood story came from the old testament. As we all know (i hope), the old testament was originally passed via oral tradition by jewish nomads in the middle east. There is evidence that there was a major flood in ancient middle east that completely covered the entire area. To a person who saw the flood (the jewish), this was their "world." They didn't know anything about America or other areas. Furthermore, there was evidence that people got on boats and took their animals with them during the flood.

So the flood story could have been true but not on the global scale as told. In my opinion I would completely ignore the entire old testament. It was originally oral tradition passed from person to person via Jewish or Sumerian, translated to latin, then eventually to English. It could have been the entire world or it could have been the middle east, we will never know because it wasn't documented during the time.

reply posted on 5-4-2012 @ 03:53 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by someguy0083
I think people forgot how the flood story came to be. The flood story came from the old testament.

It's much older than that. It's called the ancient Near East Flood myth. This story is just retold in the Bible, i.e. the Jewish writers stole it without giving credit. The original story might be in the Epic of Atrahasis, although it's possible that it too derives from an even older story..

en.wikipedia.org...
Tablet III of Atrahasis tells how the god Enki warns the hero Atrahasis (“Extremely Wise”) of Shuruppak, speaking through a reed wall (suggestive of an oracle) to dismantle his house (perhaps to provide a construction site) and build a boat to escape the flood planned by the god Enlil to destroy humankind. The boat is to have a roof “like Apsu” (a subterranean, fresh water realm presided over by the god Enki), upper and lower decks, and to be sealed with bitumen. Atrahasis boards the boat with his family and animals and seals the door. The storm and flood begin. Even the gods are afraid. After seven days the flood ends and Atrahasis offers sacrifices to the gods. Enlil is furious with Enki for violating his oath. But Enki denies violating his oath and argues: “I made sure life was preserved.” Enki and Enlil agree on other means for controlling the human population.

Summa summarum, there probably was some kind of notable regional flood back in the days, that later generations trans-mutated into an ever more epic story..