Bible supports Atlantis/Flooded world theory.

TWISI,

Interesting how you can go from this:

I am pleased to see that some kind of consensus it being reached, however tenuous, around comet impact possibly being the cause of the end of Pleistocene era.

To this:

It basically outlines that emerging scientific, peer-reviewed data is giving credence to the idea of a global flood that would have caused decimation of populations

Although evidence suggests much was covered over by the increasing sea level rise, where is the evidence for the global flood you are suggesting?

And this:

There is now a scientific theory, proving out, that would explain how, and why, massive changes quickly occurred to global landmass, burying evidence of civilizations and cultures beneath 100's of feet of sand and sediment under the ocean floor, which is where we should be looking for them.

Granted that many changes occurred, but where is the evidence that massive changes to global landmass quickly occurred? If that is where we should be looking for them, then evidence for them hasn't been found yet. How is this theory proving out? Why should we be looking for civilizations and cultures along the ancient shorelines that you are claiming now are buried under 100's of feet of sand and sediment under the ocean floor? Which is it? Ancient shorelines or under the ocean floor?

In parting I would like to say to those of us who are inclined to not[/] dismiss all evidence of prehistoric civilizations as anomolous, that you should USE THAT THEORY AND THAT THREAD when putting forward your arguments. The emerging evidence is scholarly, serious and the ramifications are vast (and Marusek himself chimes in towards the end).

The only thing you got out of this was the possibility of an impactor in the general timeframe. It's not the end all/be all answer you've made it out to be.

cormac

Now, now Cormac how dare you bring logic and reason to this discussion. Ya damn radical.

The strike certainly had an effect but it was localized and didn't effect the whole world.....as I said before it'll be 15-20 years before enough is known to make a more definite statement about that natural events effect on the earth and perhaps its cultures. We look forward to that unfolding of that time in Earths history.

Yep don't have the evidence? Just restate it more firmly....and act likes it more important than it actually is, does wonders for creditability.

Originally posted by Hanslune
The strike certainly had an effect but it was localized and didn't effect the whole world.....as I said before it'll be 15-20 years before enough is known to make a more definite statement about that natural events effect on the earth and perhaps its cultures. We look forward to that unfolding of that time in Earths history.
.

And, in fact, it's not proven yet. The evidence for it is very tenuous.

Count me among the skeptics on this one.

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Hi cormac -

I referenced that thread because it is about emerging data that is proving out Marusek's theory. As of July 27th of 2008 the skeptics who went to the comet impact/implosion region found the evidence they were going to use to debunk Bunch, Wittke, et al's. comet-impact-causing-end-of-ice- age/mass extinction theory actually PROVED IT.

Combine that with what Marusek had hypothesized years earllier and you have an explanation for how the Biblcal Account of Global Flood Myth could in fact have occurred and why the geological evidence as it is currently viewed needs to be reconsidered.

The only thing you got out of this was the possibility of an impactor in the general timeframe. It's not the end all/be all answer you've made it out to be.

I'm not sayin it is 'end all, be all' but I am saying that it allows for discussion of 'global' flooding -- and adds scientific reasoning for how and why evidence of advanced pre-historic civilizations woud be buried beneath the ocean floor -- w/o getting shut down out of the gate with the old saw of 'there's no proof', 'it's impossible based on geological records' etc.

The times they are a changin'.

Any yet, we're to take your word on it. Not cool.

Also, would be hard to show a relationship to the Biblical Flood considering it was more than likely a revised version of the Sumerian flood tales, which were local, circa 3rd millenium BC and not 10th millenium BC.

cormac

cormac -
My word for it, what are you talking about? I put up a thread that shows evidence of geological impact that has heretofore not been considered mainstream, but is quickly becoming so... and your best defence is suggesting that I am telling people to take my word for it?

Also, would be hard to show a relationship to the Biblical Flood considering it was more than likely a revised version of the Sumerian flood tales, which were local, circa 3rd millenium BC and not 10th millenium BC.

Let us not dither here, okay? The emerging evidence supports every known culture that has a global 'flood myth' post end of YD era -- WHICH IS EVERY KNOWN CULTURE. Furthermore it is being put forth that the cometary impact would have displaced habitable coastal landmass to such an extent that IT WOULD BE BURIED DEEP IN THE OCEAN FLOOR.

So, whether you like it or not, that is what is being presented. And it is now considered a geologically plausible explanation for why most of the evidence we see of prehistoric sturctues IS ON (and much more presumed under) THE OCEAN FLOOR.

Cheers!

Yet you are the one who said:

As of July 27th of 2008 the skeptics who went to the comet impact/implosion region found the evidence they were going to use to debunk Bunch, Wittke, et al's. comet-impact-causing-end-of-ice- age/mass extinction theory actually PROVED IT.

No reference to an article, no link, just your word on it. I thought you'd have realized what I was talking about, since that was your main point. But evidently not.

The emerging evidence supports every known culture that has a global 'flood myth' post end of YD era -- WHICH IS EVERY KNOWN CULTURE.

Who made the determination that all these flood stories were about the same event and upon what evidence is this based?

Furthermore it is being put forth that the cometary impact would have displaced habitable coastal landmass to such an extent that IT WOULD BE BURIED DEEP IN THE OCEAN FLOOR.

Submerged ancient coastlines are not the same thing as the ocean floor, you do realize that don't you. Where is the evidence that the Ice Age coastline is now IN or UNDER THE OCEAN FLOOR? If it's forthcoming, then it's not yet evidence.

cormac

reply to post by D.E.M.


The thing you are assuming was that Cain was among the first born of adams children. This is not said anywhere in the bible. The people he found (if he infact found other people the bible never says he did) were his older brothers and sisters. As far as the whole earth being civilized neither the bible nor history supports that. The people before the flood lived extremely long times compared to us therefore thier death rate would have been lower making a large population over a relatively shor period of time.

reply to post by cormac mac airt


hey cormac -

The links are in the THREAD I HAVE BEEN LINKING TO. The one you participated in, so don't act like you haven't seen it. And if your memory is failing you, CLICK ON IT... oh, &#%* it!
HERE!
and HERE

Some quotes from the links:

The research team believes the detonations destabilized a vast ice sheet, known as the Laurentide Ice Sheet, that covered most of what was then Canada and the northern United States. Heat from the detonation and firestorms would have melted much of the ice sheet, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere.

In July of 2008, a few weeks ago, a skeptical research team of scientists -- Assistant Professor of Anthropology Ken Tankersley, working in conjunction with Allen West and Indiana Geological Society Research Scientist Nelson R. Schaffer -- tried to disprove the theory of a comet causing the Ice Age.

(Instead Tankersley said this: )

"We believe this is the strongest evidence yet indicating a comet impact in that time period," says Tankersley.

cormac - Who made the determination that all these flood stories were about the same event and upon what evidence is this based?

I am suggesting that since every post YD era culture has a tradition of an ancient cataclysmic flood myth that they are based on the same event. I do not think I am alone in that suppostion as all of the accounts relate to a PREHISTORIC EVENT and pretty much TELL THE SAME STORY.

Submerged ancient coastlines are not the same thing as the ocean floor, you do realize that don't you. Where is the evidence that the Ice Age coastline is now IN or UNDER THE OCEAN FLOOR? If it's forthcoming, then it's not yet evidence.

Yes, I do realize that and, again, you are acting like all of this was not disucussed on my previous thread which I am returing to right now with new evidence from West that he believes may conclusively link the Carolina Bays to the cometary event that is under discussion.

If you are so inclined, you can come fight with me over there as I feel like I am hijacking this person's thread having to quote and link to it all the time in order to address you.

Cheers!
TWISI

PS - Evidence n. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

edit to add PS.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
The emerging evidence supports every known culture that has a global 'flood myth' post end of YD era -- WHICH IS EVERY KNOWN CULTURE.

The above statement is false.

"...EVERY KNOWN CULTURE..." doesn't have a flood myth, and among many that do, the tales do not correlate with what you describe.

But it's true that some might.

Harte

reply to post by Cibai


Supposing the first humans had originated not from Adam but from the apes. In that case, too, the first human must have slept with his sister in order to carry forward the species. Further, unlike Adam who got Eve from God, a number of evolved humans must have died before the miracle took place. The miracle of apes giving birth to a male human and a female human at the same time. Biology teaches Incest, apart from Co-incidences and Miracles.

Originally posted by earth2
To me its so obvious.
... I just cant imagine a fiction being passed down from generation to generation.

Ummm ... God, Gods?? Magical beings who rule over humanity? How's that for a grand fiction?

Cain and Able were not Adam and Eve's first and only children. Genesis 1:28 (KJV) "And God blessed them and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth." Most noteably the bible does not tell how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden, also they were not primitave like everyone always assumes. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God literally on a daily basis. I think conversing with the all knowing creator might just make somewhat inteligent. Definately more inteligent than most supposed brilliant close minded professors who claim to be open minded

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop

Originally posted by earth2
To me its so obvious.
... I just cant imagine a fiction being passed down from generation to generation.

Ummm ... God, Gods?? Magical beings who rule over humanity? How's that for a grand fiction?

It may sound like "a grand fiction" but you cant rule it out because it seems rather far fetched in this day and age.

The bible seems to be rather vague when it comes to Adam and Eve times. Does anyone know of any other texts which talk about all of that? Dead sea scrolls perhaps?

reply to post by dvv1cft


Genesis 1:28 is pretty strong biblical evidence that ancient populations had come and gone. Adam and Eve were told to "replenish the earth" which implies the earth had been previously populated.

reply to post by D.E.M.


If you read the end of Genesis, you will see that it is referring to "ALL the hosts of Heaven" in the day they were made.

The Book of Genesis whole story of mankind, not just thousands of years ago. The names in the bible are representative of characters not actual people, but those attributes.....We are almost at the flood....It's coming...not behind.

Peace

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
The emerging evidence supports every known culture that has a global 'flood myth' post end of YD era -- WHICH IS EVERY KNOWN CULTURE.

The above statement is false.

"...EVERY KNOWN CULTURE..." doesn't have a flood myth, and among many that do, the tales do not correlate with what you describe.

But it's true that some might.

Harte

Oh? Then do tell. What cultures do NOT have a flood "myth"?

There are some things that are in EVERY culture that has ever existed: Dragons, the flood, and prohibitions against incest.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Oh? Then do tell. What cultures do NOT have a flood "myth"?

There are some things that are in EVERY culture that has ever existed: Dragons, the flood, and prohibitions against incest.

They also all have stories about wars and about star crossed lovers .....

Common experiences and common themes. Interesting how people at different times and in different parts of the world come up with similar explanations for giant bones and seashells on mountain tops .... but if you think about it, it is a pretty obvious explanation given their knowledge at the time.


There's no myth of a global flood in British culture, nor indeed for much of the rest of Europe.


Oh, and if we're using Genesis - it clearly states that God destroyed every living thing on the planet except for Noah and those in the ark with him. However, other flood myths clearly describe people surviving by climbing trees or hills or even hiding on caves. So either they describe different events. Or God is a liar.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Essan]

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Oh? Then do tell. What cultures do NOT have a flood "myth"?

See Essan's post for an example.

The Egyptians have no "flood myth," though their myth of their origin is often referred to as one. Fact is, it's the reverse of a flood myth.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
There are some things that are in EVERY culture that has ever existed: Dragons, the flood, and prohibitions against incest.

Big talk. I submit you are wrong in all three particulars.

Harte