"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

reply to post by dusty1


I'm going to just answer these in short form because you don't seem to appreciate my long form answers and consistently cut out the majority of the material I spend a bit too much time preparing.

Anyway, I was a bit tired when I wrote the glacier thing. I know the processes and I should have explained it thoroughly. The main point is that non-global floods explain the things better.

As for mountains rising up over the course of 15 million years, how does that support your theory? Plate tectonics puts forth the idea that mountains rise due to tectonic pressures over the course of many centuries. As for how this supports sea beds lowering, I'm still clueless.

And you didn't do your calculations.

The total volume of all water on this Earth is 1.5 × 10^21 liters or 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters
I took the largest volume attributed to the oceans from here, just to give you a slight edge

Oddly enough, Wikipedia has an article that does the math for you, about the Hydrosphere concept

The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×10^18 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 361.8×106 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332×109 km3.[96] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

There'd be some evidence of this sort of thing. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of a fully planar Earth

Now, to reference something from an actual quote in your post:

You're kidding?

I am not taking you out of context and going off site with your statement. Everybody can scroll up and see your whole comment.

We are supposed to edit the quotes in our posts

Considering that you took three paragraphs and reduced them to one line to come to the conclusion of "dogma", you did take my words out of context. I said one thing, you changed it by snipping my comments into something that supported your position.

As for this external quote:

The Geological Society of Washington, D.C invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a January 12, 1927 meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories. Bretz saw this as an ambush, and referred to the group as six challenging elders. Their intention was to defeat him in a public debate, and thus end the challenge his theories posed to the long standing uniformitarianism dogma.

No, that's just how science works. If his idea was best it would have stood scrutiny and public discourse. To not be open to public scrutiny from six other competing theories which, by the way, would have been competed amongst each other as well, is silly as a scientist.

Oh, and the Wikipedia entry you provided doesn't have proper citations for its statements, so please find better sourcing.

reply to post by WalterRatlos


thanks Walt, I appreciate your straight forward response to my questions...

though as the moderator has said, if the content of the topic is not interesting or bothers anyone I guess there is no reason posting in it.

I actually have nothing to add to this topic other than the fact that I do not believe the story to be "silly" at all, in fact I find it has raised many scientific debates and discovered "facts" just as the Bible in which it came from has done on many other historical and archeological finds.

Great mini story of the Greatest story ever told, in my opinion...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by WalterRatlos

 

I actually have nothing to add to this topic other than the fact that I do not believe the story to be "silly" at all, in fact I find it has raised many scientific debates and discovered "facts" just as the Bible in which it came from has done on many other historical and archeological finds.

Question 9: Where is the evidence of the flood story increasing scientific knowledge?
Question 10: Where is the evidence of the Bible being verified via historical and archeological finds?
Question 11: Where is the evidence that this is anything but silly?

Great mini story of the Greatest story ever told, in my opinion...

And that's all they are stories. Not history, not fact, not even remotely plausible, they're stories.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by mazzroth
Did these figures account for the Black Death ? Wars ? and famine ?. Another thing worth noting would be infant deaths being very high and the actual growth of a population being extremely slow.

i honestly have no idea what the figures account, this wasn't supposed to be the most in depth analysis, mainly because it doesn't take much to demolish such a silly story

Well you are faced with the problem that many cultures far and wide have a flood story. So logic would suggest that something happened way back in time somewhere to give birth to this story. As well some cultrual flood stories also narrow it down to 8 humans having been at the start over point.

reply to post by Logarock


Wow, you quoted a post I made...over three years ago.

Originally posted by Logarock
Well you are faced with the problem that many cultures far and wide have a flood story.

And you are faced with the problem that many cultures far and wide experienced localized flooding. There is nothing to suggest that thse

So logic would suggest that something happened way back in time somewhere to give birth to this story.

Logically it would be most reasonable to assume that they made myths out of localized floods. Why? Because there's no physical evidence of a global flood. There's also the work of Joseph Campbell and other mythologists that shows that there are many common themes throughout mythology. Hell, they're even present throughout fiction. It's something in our psychology rather than something that actually happened that gives rise to mythology.

As well some cultrual flood stories also narrow it down to 8 humans having been at the start over point.

I'm sorry, where's the evidence for this claim? And where's the evidence to show that these stories all originate from the same time period, agree with each other on the basic facts, and have any evidence in the physical world to support them?

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by OhZone

 

Have you ever seen an ice cube on your kitchen table when it's melting? Same thing applies to glaciers, there's your answer.......

Yeah, it leaves a puddle of water.

Here's something for you jheated:

"ere be any such motion en masse it cannot be great, nor can it exceed a certain amount without the force inducing it becoming dissipated. This seems plain, as I showed before from some simple considerations. Every solid known to us will crush and disintegrate under a sufficient pressure, and it does not matter whether this pressure is applied perpendicularly downwards, or laterally. It follows, therefore, that if a solid be so heavy and so big that it requires more than a certain force to move it, it will crush rather than move, that is to say, the whole thrust will be dissipated by the object being reduced to pulp, or even liquid, which will flow away rather than move en masse.
This argument applies to all solids, and notably to what is almost a solid, i.e., to ice. The crushing point of ice has been roughly ascertained. It enables us positively to say that a mass of ice which is longer than (according to Oldham in his paper on the modulus of ice) about seven miles cannot be moved en bloc along a flat surface without crushing. If the ice has to move up-hill, and therefore to overcome gravity, the difficulty of moving it en masse will, a fortioi, be increased, and the length of the column of ice capable of being moved will be proportionately lessened. If it is on a slope and gravity gives its assistance, this motion will be reversed, and the greater the slope the greater the distance to which the mass can be moved. This is of course treating the problem apart from friction. There is also evidence that when glaciers reach level ground their motion, however caused, rapidly ceases. [12]"
www.sentex.net...

* This video contains language *

reply to post by OhZone


...the point was that a melting ice cube moves on a flat surface. It's the same principle behind ice skates and glacial movement.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
I will provide you with that a bit later.

As far as tales worldwide based on local floods as you put out there are problems with this in that these are stories about a large worldwide destructive flood of large type. So great was this flood that it is looked at as a marker point to a new era. Sumarian, Egypt, Maya, South Pacific ect.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


darwin, maybe we are talking about 2 different things here.
1. and all over all at once high water event.,, as with Noah" story, which would satisfy your Sediment requiremnt.

2. and irregular water event characterized by tsunamis, and massive amounts of rain - collapsed sky-buckets and barrels of water dropping, high winds, earthquakes, fires, and volcanoes going off, all being somewhat different in different parts of the Earth, more here, less there. The accounts also described falls of rock and mud.

#2 is likely what really happened, and there is plenty of evidence for that. I have given a link to one article on this.

Part of the cataclysm story is that there was massive earth movement that created those himalayas. That is why they are not eroded. They are young and were freshly formed during the event.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by OhZone

 

...the point was that a melting ice cube moves on a flat surface. It's the same principle behind ice skates and glacial movement.

Repeat:
"If there be any such motion en masse it cannot be great, nor can it exceed a certain amount without the force inducing it becoming dissipated. This seems plain, as I showed before from some simple considerations. Every solid known to us will crush and disintegrate under a sufficient pressure, and it does not matter whether this pressure is applied perpendicularly downwards, or laterally. It follows, therefore, that if a solid be so heavy and so big that it requires more than a certain force to move it, it will crush rather than move, that is to say, the whole thrust will be dissipated by the object being reduced to pulp, or even liquid, which will flow away rather than move en masse.
This argument applies to all solids, and notably to what is almost a solid, i.e., to ice. The crushing point of ice has been roughly ascertained. It enables us positively to say that a mass of ice which is longer than (according to Oldham in his paper on the modulus of ice) about seven miles cannot be moved en bloc along a flat surface without crushing. If the ice has to move up-hill, and therefore to overcome gravity, the difficulty of moving it en masse will, a fortioi, be increased, and the length of the column of ice capable of being moved will be proportionately lessened. If it is on a slope and gravity gives its assistance, this motion will be reversed, and the greater the slope the greater the distance to which the mass can be moved. This is of course treating the problem apart from friction. There is also evidence that when glaciers reach level ground their motion, however caused, rapidly ceases. [12]"

www.sentex.net...

An ice cube is not a continent sized glacier.

This site discusses several explanations for Flood Stories.

See "The Clovis Controversy" for the cataclysm explanation.

www.thecityedition.com...

I do not know if someone have posted that here. If not i am posting it, to serve as an info.

Noah´s Ark Discovered --Again

"And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen." -- Genesis 8:4-5

The Gilgamesh Epic (650 BC) gives Mt. Nisir as the landing place of the Ark. The local name for the town where the Ark was found is Nasar.

The annals of Ashurnasurpal II of Assyria (833-859 BC) places it south of the Zab river (correct).

Theophilus of Antioch (115-185 AD) said the Ark could be seen in his day in the Arabian mountains. Later Church Fathers also mention the Ark as late as the mid 7th century.

In the 13th century, Willam, a traveler, stated for the first time that Mt. Masis was the Ark location (present-day Mt. Ararat).

Ptolemy's Geographia (1548) mentions the mountains of Armenia as the place of landing. So does the traveler Nicolas de Nicolay (1558).

Peace

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....

reply to post by OhZone


Um...your quote is from 1905 in a book I cannot properly read and address because I cannot find it. Of course, the entire quote doesn't refer to experiments, raw data, or anything. It's just someone's opinion.

Now, jheated5 has put this in an incredibly simple manner for you. I wouldn't be surprised if s/he actually had formal training in the relevant scientific fields.

reply to post by Seed76


Eh, I'm sure someone else will claim to find it in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, etc etc.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dusty1

Anyway, I was a bit tired when I wrote the glacier thing. I know the processes and I should have explained it thoroughly. The main point is that non-global floods explain the things better.

I thought the main point was that glaciers don't cause planation, as you asserted.

As for mountains rising up over the course of 15 million years, how does that support your theory? Plate tectonics puts forth the idea that mountains rise due to tectonic pressures over the course of many centuries. As for how this supports sea beds lowering, I'm still clueless.

Marine fossils on mountains.

Mountains rise according to the theory of Plate Techtonics, continents rise and seafloors sink because of Isostasy.

Guyots demonstrate areas in which the seafloor sank.

The height of mountain ranges is usually related to the thickness of crust. This results from the isostasy associated with orogeny (mountain formation). The crust is thickened by the compressive forces related to subduction or continental collision. The buoyancy of the crust forces it upwards, the forces of the collisional stress balanced by gravity and erosion.

TThe gravitational instability of mature oceanic lithosphere has the effect that at subduction zones, oceanic lithosphere invariably sinks underneath the overriding lithosphere, which can be oceanic or continental. ext

All of which is supported by the Bible.

You stated that the Flood could not have occurred because the water would still cover the earth.

The composition of the Continental Lithosphere vs the Oceanic Lithosphere clearly demonstrate how the Flood Waters would have receded.

And you didn't do your calculations.

The total volume of all water on this Earth is 1.5 × 10^21 liters or 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters
I took the largest volume attributed to the oceans from here, just to give you a slight edge

Oddly enough, Wikipedia has an article that does the math for you, about the Hydrosphere concept

The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×10^18 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 361.8×106 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332×109 km3.[96] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

I see you dug up my wikipedia reference on page 4 of this thread. Cool.

There'd be some evidence of this sort of thing. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of a fully planar Earth

You stated that there was not enough water to cover the earth.

Did you know... Facts about sphere depth of the ocean: abundance of water on Earth’s surface, as discussed in ocean (Earth feature): ...the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Link

I never said the earth was perfectly smooth, we know it had mountains. The Bible states that the highest mountain was covered by water a few meters high. Mountains could still have existed that were over 2.5 kilometers high, and still been submerged.

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dusty1

 

Anyway, I was a bit tired when I wrote the glacier thing. I know the processes and I should have explained it thoroughly. The main point is that non-global floods explain the things better.

I thought the main point was that glaciers don't cause planation, as you asserted.

I'll let you in on a secret, I was tired and drunk when I made that statement. It's a bit gibberish in retrospect.

As for mountains rising up over the course of 15 million years, how does that support your theory? Plate tectonics puts forth the idea that mountains rise due to tectonic pressures over the course of many centuries. As for how this supports sea beds lowering, I'm still clueless.

Marine fossils on mountains.

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

Mountains rise according to the theory of Plate Techtonics, continents rise and seafloors sink because of Isostasy.

Yes, but they don't sink or rise suddenly. There's no evidence of a mountain rising overnight.

(snipped out external sources for readability, check out in the post replied to)
All of which is supported by the Bible.

No, the Bible says God does it whenever he wants.

You stated that the Flood could not have occurred because the water would still cover the earth.

The composition of the Continental Lithosphere vs the Oceanic Lithosphere clearly demonstrate how the Flood Waters would have receded.

...except that it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of the drastic changes that would have been required in the two. We have evidence that there have been changes, but that they occurred before humanity was around.

I see you dug up my wikipedia reference on page 4 of this thread. Cool.

And put it in context.

There'd be some evidence of this sort of thing. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of a fully planar Earth

You stated that there was not enough water to cover the earth.

With the implication of the addendum "within human history and for a year". I mean, we're talking about a flood story that takes place within human history (so within a few hundred thousand years), and stayed that way for a year.

Did you know... Facts about sphere depth of the ocean: abundance of water on Earth’s surface, as discussed in ocean (Earth feature): ...the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Link

I never said the earth was perfectly smooth, we know it had mountains. The Bible states that the highest mountain was covered by water a few meters high. Mountains could still have existed that were over 2.5 kilometers high, and still been submerged.

I'm leaving the external quote there because it demonstrates your ignorance of geometry. Mountains over 2.5 kilometers high existing would throw off the calculations immensely. And you can't take the sphere depth + mountains. You'd have to include the land masses humans lived on previous to the flooding (which definitely had to be above sea level), the depths of the oceans, lake beds, and seas prior to the events of this proposed flood, and then figure it out from there.

You don't just add mountains to the sphere depth, that's silly.

Originally posted by Seed76
I do not know if someone have posted that here. If not i am posting it, to serve as an info.

Noah´s Ark Discovered --Again

"And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen." -- Genesis 8:4-5

The Gilgamesh Epic (650 BC) gives Mt. Nisir as the landing place of the Ark. The local name for the town where the Ark was found is Nasar.

The annals of Ashurnasurpal II of Assyria (833-859 BC) places it south of the Zab river (correct).

Theophilus of Antioch (115-185 AD) said the Ark could be seen in his day in the Arabian mountains. Later Church Fathers also mention the Ark as late as the mid 7th century.

In the 13th century, Willam, a traveler, stated for the first time that Mt. Masis was the Ark location (present-day Mt. Ararat).

Ptolemy's Geographia (1548) mentions the mountains of Armenia as the place of landing. So does the traveler Nicolas de Nicolay (1558).

The idea of finding the ark is just about as silly as the rest of the myth of the flood story.
Imagine if you were one of several families alighting from a ship after nearly a year of floating on a submerged world. What would you need first?

Wood for cooking.
Wood for building houses. (The ark would stink by then.)
Wood for for the holocausts.

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

So anyone talking about a surviving ark afterwards, let alone thousands of years afterwards, is either deluded, or is attempting to delude you.

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

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I'm leaving the external quote there because it demonstrates your ignorance of geometry. Mountains over 2.5 kilometers high existing would throw off the calculations immensely. And you can't take the sphere depth + mountains. You'd have to include the land masses humans lived on previous to the flooding (which definitely had to be above sea level), the depths of the oceans, lake beds, and seas prior to the events of this proposed flood, and then figure it out from there.

You don't just add mountains to the sphere depth, that's silly.

The elevation of the land surface of the Earth varies from the low point of −418 m at the Dead Sea, to a 2005-estimated maximum altitude of 8,848 m at the top of Mount Everest. The mean height of land above sea level is 840 m.

The deepest underwater location is Challenger Deep of the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean with a depth of −10,911.4 m

There are, and always have been high points on this planet, and low ones.

My point is, the mountains were not as high and the trenches were not as deep.

I'll let you in on a secret, I was tired and drunk when I made that statement. It's a bit gibberish in retrospect.

Nobody's perfect.