Atlantis and Noah!

Originally posted by Nygdan
I can almost see the missing word there.

You mean "I'm not a giant flaming arse like O'Reily"? Your words, not mine friend. I meant what I said. And I probably -am- a giant arse (Once again the "like O'Reily" part is your own opinion). (i just murdered the spelling of his name didn't i?)

Now I was just thinking... over in the thread about Antarctica being the hub of civilization, somebody mentioned that the ice is the earth down 300 feet there.
Well... water is more dense than ice, and the water over the ocean floor in most of the world is deeper than the ice in antarctica.
This means that after a long and pervasive glaciation, the thaw could concievably raise ocean levels considerably. I lack the expertise to suggest any specific number, however it is reasonable to believe it would be in severe excess of 300 feet, considering the mass of an ocean as opposed to antarctic ice. Just for fun, let's assume that the ocean floor has been compacted 1600 feet (i'm using this number because the evelation shading on my atlas has a cut-off point there.)

According to my Atlas, you'd get what ammounts to significant localized flooding in a great many places, especially along that paths of important rivers like the Nile, Euphrates, and Amazon. (the Euphrates and Amazon specifically would be beneath large gulfs). At the same time, a short move into the mountains would be all that was required to survive... No floating the whole world population around on a boat for 40 days and 40 nights.

Just tossing out an idea for everyone to use as a pinata (how do you make the accented spanish N?)


[edit on 9-8-2004 by The Vagabond]

Someone a while back mentoned that maybe the flood was a racial memory from a time when humnity existed in smaller numbers and a local flood could have been percieved as the whole world flooding (if you have never been past the horizon then the world only stretches from one horizon to another)
On a related note there was a recent show on discovery about mitochondrial eve a woman whose Mitochondrial dna line is the source for all human mitochondrial dna on the planet. At one point during the migration of early humans out of africa the entire tribe was not much more than 200 people strong (every race outside africa is desended from these 200 people by the way) and the entire human race was no more than 20000 strong. Now if a flood had happened which affected these people (possibly causing the tribes exodus) it could account for the flood myth being in every culture world wide.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.bbc.co.uk...

More follow up links
www.duerinck.com...
www.ramsdale.org...
amonhotep.com...


Of course it could also be because the wrath of god really did flood the world (or at least the human inhabited part)

If i understand you correctly vagabond you are thinking about the effects of melting all the polar ice no? You are correct, from my understanding, it would result in a very significant rise in sea levels. During the cretaceous (the end of the mesozoic) there were no polar ice sheets, and all the water frozen now was loose as liquid. In the US, this resulted in an enourmous 'shallow sea' covering many of the central states


here is a great site for the paleontologyand geology of that ocean. Torwards the bottom is a good illustration of it. As far as this having happened in historical times, I would have to ask, where are the flood deposits corresponding to this event? They might very well be there for all I know, but anyone looking to establish this sort of thing would need to find them. The shallow sea i refered to above, for example, resulted in the deposition of particular rock types that were part of the evidence that lead scientists to realize that this ocean existed. This ocean/sea is often called 'The Western Interior Sea'

Paleontologists found mass "graveyards" of dinosaurs and even wooly mammoths,some with flowers still in their mouths.Evidence of a deluge.Glaciers do not sneak up on you.

Originally posted by stgeorge
Paleontologists found mass "graveyards" of dinosaurs and even wooly mammoths,some with flowers still in their mouths.Evidence of a deluge.Glaciers do not sneak up on you.

There are no paleontological sites with dinosaur and wooly mammoth remains in the same strata. What site are you talking about?

Why would it be evidence of a global flood? Are the fossils found in flood deposits or not? Why are floods in mesozoic strata supposed to be cotemporaneous with floods in cenozoic strata? Why is evidence of a local flood supposed to be evidence for a global flood? I don't doubt that there are 'fossil graveyards' that represent catastrophic mass kills of herds of animals. But why would you equate that with a global flood, especially since the flood deposits don't correlate to being in the same time?

Originally posted by The Cockroach

The Chinese also have a flood myth, of one "Nu Wah" who built a boat and was saved from the deluge along with his wife and six children. The word for "Boat" in chinese is a combination of the words "Mouth" and "Eight".

no the word boat in chinese isnt mouth and eight its just a word.......and the sounds for mouth and eight arent even close to how they say it in chinese........its tshawn

The point is,you have to be eating to be caught dead with something in your mouth. This was a Siberian mammoth.These were spring flowers.And the corpse was engulfed with ice.
The psycic ( a real one) corroberatted this. And psycics sometimes know things scientists do not,centuries ahead of time.

Originally posted by stgeorge
The point is,you have to be eating to be caught dead with something in your mouth. This was a Siberian mammoth.These were spring flowers.And the corpse was engulfed with ice.
The psycic ( a real one) corroberatted this. And psycics sometimes know things scientists do not,centuries ahead of time.

There are many ways in which an animal can get killed while eating, the least likely of which is a global flood. You said its a spring flower, which is interesting, because I haven't heard that before, and would like to know the reference for this. Spring in siberia is a different thing than normal spring time. Also, a flower? That doesn't sound like what I had though these organisms eat normally (which isn't particularly relevant anyway, just makes me more curious to see the reference). Plus this is during the ice age? And on the portion of land that has a permafrost no? Where it never warms up enough so that the ground (at a certain depth) can thaw? So why is a global flood a more likely culprit than the organism merely dying, remaining cold enough to be preserved, and then covered in snow later on? Even your own idea of it being a flood requires that the exposed corpse some how get covered in snow and ice, after the flood.


[edit, i fergot to ask]

What pyschics coroborated this? How did they coroborate and where was this done (ie references)? Did they tell the scientists that there would be a spring flower in the organisms mouth before anyone looked in it? Did they even help find the organism? What did they actually do?


[edit on 11-8-2004 by Nygdan]

I find the Ron Wyatt findings to be worth studying. And the Turkish government was so confident that it was the real deal that they built a visitor's center there. I guess you just have to take the Wyatt team's word for it when it comes to the scientific research of the findings.
Read through all the pages regarding Noah's Ark.
www.wyattmuseum.com...

The other stuff makes for good reading too. And if you're not very religious like me you just treat the biblical quotes as old stories used as a starting point in their research.

Originally posted by Fluxd
I find the Ron Wyatt findings to be worth studying.

ron wyatt most certainly did not find noahs ark. have you seen this page:
www.tentmaker.org...

What from the page you linked did you find convincing, or do you not think he found the 'ark' either?

Well anyone who visits this site should very well know that for every person that claims they saw, found, or know something there is an army of nay-sayers ready to counter with all kinds of proof to the contrary. Hell, that's why we're at this site right now discussing the topics that we are. Because this is where people can pass along information freely and let the reader make up his/her mind.

Honestly, I won't be 100% convinced that that site is the so-called Noah's Ark until I fly out there and have a close look for myself. But that's never going to happen. But given all that I head read about what was allegedly found at and around that site.. I'd say that is the best anyone has done so far. If it exists, it sure as hell isn't on top of a glacier covered mountain, teetering precariously on the edge like some would have you believe. If I went to the Wyatt site and took a look at what should be rib timbers, I would tell you whether or not it is petrified wood or just basalt columns. And how do you explain the detected metal deposits that just happen to lie in a pattern that could indicate a man made structure? Do you think that was all staged? If you've read any of Ron Wyatt's biographical accounts you would know that he always kept a skeptical scientific eye on what he found.

Ok, so you think what's posted on the Wyatt Foundation's site is bunk. Well why should I believe a site that tells me that everything I've heard is a lie, especially when the link was posted by someone who is in discordance with me? Christian groups are so unbelievably good at in-fighting, so it doesn't surprise me that so much "effort" has been put into discrediting claims that such a historical piece of the puzzle has been discovered. I would love to see exactly how much of their money is being put into research of another alleged ark site. I'll just bet they are behind such an operation. It would be a a no-brainer why they would want to debunk other findings. And since Mr. Wyatt is no longer around to defend himself, I think I'll take what Tentmaker Ministries says with more than just a grain of salt.

[edit on 12-8-2004 by Fluxd]

Originally posted by Fluxd
Well anyone who visits this site should very well know that for every person that claims they saw, found, or know something there is an army of nay-sayers ready to counter with all kinds of proof to the contrary. Hell, that's why we're at this site right now discussing the topics that we are.

Right. So what about their analysis was unconvincing to you?

Because this is where people can pass along information freely and let the reader make up his/her mind.

Right. Information. Evidence and the like. As an aside, why do you think that the ark existed at all? Lets just set aside, for the purpose of this portion of the discussion, any ark 'discoveries', pro or con. Why do you think it existed in the first place?

I would tell you whether or not it is petrified wood or just basalt columns.

It shoul've been relatively easy for anyone to demonstrate that a rock sample is either petrified wood or basalt. What is the evidence that you find convincing for it being petrified wood?

how do you explain the detected metal deposits that just happen to lie in a pattern that could indicate a man made structure?

The 'metals' were found to be naturally occuring metallic bearing minerals. the 'pattern' is merely a dispersed field of them. Look at it. The 'pattern' is just that they have spread out over an area, its not some intricate pattern, just a dispersal that one could draw a grid over. Hardly spectacular.

Do you think that was all staged? If you've read any of Ron Wyatt's biographical accounts you would know that he always kept a skeptical scientific eye on what he found.

I have not seen anything on any of these sites to indicate that what he found had anything to do with the supposed 'ark'. I do not care if fraud or error is involved, the data itself is insufficient.

Ok, so you think what's posted on the Wyatt Foundation's site is bunk. Well why should I believe a site that tells me that everything I've heard is a lie, especially when the link was posted by someone who is in discordance with me?

Because their reasoning, evidence, and systematic analysis is more logical, coherent, plausible and sensible?

I would love to see exactly how much of their money is being put into research of another alleged ark site. I'll just bet they are behind such an operation. It would be a a no-brainer why they would want to debunk other findings.

Ok, now you are making completely baseless accusations. This is a discussion about the relevant evidence and what it tells us. Apparently you haven't been able to find anything wrong with their reasoning and explanations, and instead cop-out and accuse them of fraud.

And since Mr. Wyatt is no longer around to defend himself, I think I'll take what Tentmaker Ministries says with more than just a grain of salt.

What possible difference does his death make? He was around when this other site was up. What could he possibly say today that he hasn't already said? Why would it even matter, since you are rejecting their analysis because it doesn't agree with your 'worldview', which you explicitly stated above?

It there was permafrost,why did it have "flowers" in its gullet and how did it become encased in ice? I assume there were bigger ones located but too huge to move,they are larger than elephants you know.
There are also mass gravesites for animals.Some kind of cataclysm some scientists ventured.
Mass extinctions.Look up paleontology.

Originally posted by stgeorge
It there was permafrost,why did it have "flowers" in its gullet and how did it become encased in ice?

Why should permafrost be a problem for either, especially the ice? This mammoth, you are saying it was encased in a block of ice?

I assume there were bigger ones located but too huge to move,they are larger than elephants you know.
There are also mass gravesites for animals.Some kind of cataclysm some scientists ventured.
Mass extinctions.Look up paleontology.

I am quite familiar with bone graveyards. I am also familiar with mass extinctions. The fact that you equate the two indicates you are not familiar with either. They are two entirely different things.

Have you been unable to find the references for this story you have presented?

It was found in a Siberian glacier.It must have been somehow quick frozen,for the scientists even served its millenia ols meat at a function. Little decomposition,and no evidence of a predator attack.
The "Flood" or a series of them, might have happened one place then at another time in another.
The locals regarded where they lived as "The World". Like Eskimoes. "This place is The World and we are The People."
Lucky or informed ones escaped any innundations,and I am not just talking about Noah.It is a world wide myth or legend. (Berlitz)

Almost every ancient culture has a legend or story of a great flood... we are talking all over the world dating back thousands of years. Most are quite similar so I think we can rule out the idea that it was a localized event exxagerated due to world view at the time. The cataclysm did indeed take place.
could it have been the same event that took down atlantis? possible.. but its really hard to say or even speculate. It is possible.

On the Jeff Rense site,it reports that the ice at the northern caps are melting at an extraordinary rate. The Northwest and North East passages are clear again. Ie. all of northern Alaska is clear.
In Greenland core samples reveal plants and seeds under the ice.

The reason why the flood stories are worldwide is so obvious that it sticks out like dogs balls. Humans have always lived near water, be it the Ocean or riverways. Even today half the Worlds population live in costal areas. Another flaw in the global flood scenario are places like the country I live in, New Zealand, which has species of life that predate Noah by millions of years. For example the Tuatara, a small forest floor reptile that due to NZ's isolation, has survived 220 million years. Surely a global flood would of washed it away, and as far as I know Noah never travelled this far south. Then there are the forests that have also been around since the dinosaur, were home to many species of birds that due to the lack of any natural predators (until man) had over millions of years evolved into flightless birds. Then there's the question of the fragile stalactites and 'mites that have also stood the test of time. IMHO I think that many of the great flood memories stem from the end of the last Ice-age, the shorelines rose, humanity was on the move. Look at the number of cultures involved in great migrations around the same time. It's no big mystery, Nature is not static, she's always either ebbing or flowing, always remaking herself in her own image. (corny eh?)

Originally posted by stgeorge
It was found in a Siberian glacier.

The only time I have ever heard of any frozen mammoths being found anywhere they were frozen in permafrost. Not actually in a glacier. I think you are remembering this incident incorrectly.

st. george:
I am not just talking about Noah.It is a world wide myth or legend. (Berlitz)

Who is Berlitz? It is not a world wide myth. It is not the same myth in all these different cultures. They have myths about floods, yes, and they probably did experience dangerous floods, but these were local floods, not one global flooding.

nephratari:
Almost every ancient culture has a legend or story of a great flood... we are talking all over the world dating back thousands of years. Most are quite similar so I think we can rule out the idea that it was a localized event exxagerated due to world view at the time

These myths are definietly not similar enough to justify saying that they must've come from the same event. Most ancient civilizations started up on river valleys, which flood, often catastrophically. The people that lived in these early cities would experience a flood and see everyhting they knew destroyed, so they would not be 'exaggerating' (in a sense anyway) if they said 'the whole world was flooded'. Most importantly, there isn't any actual evidence for a global flood.

nephratari:
The cataclysm did indeed take place.

If it did then it has left no evidence that it occured and there is no reason to think that it did. Of course, one could accept that it occured on faith, or interpret data 'intuitively' or something like that, but unfortunately there would still be no reason to think that one occured.

edited to add:

In Greenland core samples reveal plants and seeds under the ice.

I do not understand, what does this have to do with the matter?

[edit on 15-8-2004 by Nygdan]