It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Testing The Bible Scientifically Part 3 / The Genesis Flood and More

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Since you asked for a scientific consensus on whether there was a global flood. I'll supply the link for you to check out and I'll insert points of reference to the claims you have made:

Talk Origins


Vapor canopy.

This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown:

How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?

If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.

If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.

A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.

Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.



Hydroplate.

Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.

How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.

Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.

Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.


A few questions I'll borrow from the link since it's long and I doubt you'll read all of it and dismiss it as unscientific.

(1) How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?

(2) If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth?

(3) Is there any reason at all why the Flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.

And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.

In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns


I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?

edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:

Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.




edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by isyeye
 


It was 15 cubits above the mountains actually and your wrong about your assumptions of the amount of water that was used for the flood and where it came from.

If there were a flood over the whole earth, the ice in Antarctica would have floated away. Or at least be salty.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.

And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.

In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns


I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?

edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:

Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.




edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep


Uh, uplift?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by banishedfromthisarea

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.

And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.

In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns


I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?

edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:

Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.




edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep


Uh, uplift?


OK - uplift from what?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Never heard of uplift? One day in 1973, there was a little earthquake and the Sierra Nevada mountain range grew 13 feet. That's uplift. Something like 12 million years ago, a mountain range outside Yellowstone uplifted creating the grand tetons. Ever notice a crack in a sidewalk can result in that part of the sidewalk uplifting. If you sufficiently crack the earth, you weaken it so the earth can move.

Ever heard of "spalling"? When a projectile hits a concrete wall hard enough, the wall may not break, but the inside could fly off and kill people near it. That's spalling. A sphere is a unique geometric shape. Spalling in a sphere can happen. Supposedly, when the Yucatan was blown apart by a huge meteor 65 million years ago, at the antipode of the earth, spalling occurred - resulting in the largest release of lava the earth has ever seen (Indian stepps). If that energy from the meteor doesn't spall out the other side, it's going to go somewhere. And, its likely a lot of that energy will bounce back to where it came from - and back and forth - like a ringing bell. That may cause the interior of the earth to be affected in a manner that contributes to uplift. But, probably more likely is that when you blow out a couple miles of rock, the absence of weight now makes the material below the hole want to rise up - up lift.
edit on 1-1-2012 by banishedfromthisarea because: Had more to say.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by isyeye
 


Can you tell me what verse states that the flood waters only went 15 cubits high please?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.

And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.

In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns


I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?

edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:

Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.




edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep


I don't think the beds of seashells meters thick would have formed in forty days and forty nights and UNDER other rock formations at that in a worldwide flood scenario. Don't you think that if your rebuttal held true, they would be scatterd upon the surface like you find them at the beach instead of in layers of bedrock far below the surface? How deep were those formations before you factor in erosion?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.

And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.

In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns


I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?

edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:

Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.




edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep


Like I and others have already told you about half a dozen times in other threads:

Those seashells are there because of PLATE TECTONICS. Read up on how the Himalayas formed and it should be abundantly clear why there's seashells up certain mountains


Cliff notes: The genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by isyeye
 


Can you tell me what verse states that the flood waters only went 15 cubits high please?




Genesis 7:18-20

17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered



Fifteen cubits is only 22 feet, by the way. It's much more plausible that these "mountains" were actually hills.
edit on 1-1-2012 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81



Genesis 7:20

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered



edit on 1-1-2012 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)


Just for clarification. Most translations make it sound more like the waters were 15 cubits higher than the highest mountains. That's also what most Christians who are at least vaguely researched in the story believe.

It's straw-manning to use a misinterpretation of scripture to point out how ridiculous it is. The writers knew that 15 cubits wouldn't cover mountains. The story has so many faults, and scientific problems, I see no reason one would feel the need to grasp at straws with that misinterpretation to point out how wrong it is. You can do that going after the proper interpretation with no problems.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


I agree, by reading and applying some simple geology mixed in with a little history, one would realize this. It's more a local flood than a global flood. Even some of the skeptics could learn a bit, too. If you go with a local flood, you eliminate a lot of the straw man's created by both parties.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I've read over the entire thread at this point, and I'm wondering about what the book of Genesis wrote that said that the waters below were apart from the waters above. Are people in the thread stating that the waters above were always separated by them being the clouds, or are people saying there was a waterway above the earth?

If they are saying the latter, I would think it could be difficult to ever prove that hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.

And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.

In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns


I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?

edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:

Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.




edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep


Like I and others have already told you about half a dozen times in other threads:

Those seashells are there because of PLATE TECTONICS. Read up on how the Himalayas formed and it should be abundantly clear why there's seashells up certain mountains


Cliff notes: The genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense


OK - now that most you replied with your facts do you agree with me then these tall mountains (like the Himalayas) were under water at one point in time?

If so do you agree with me that the mountains we see today are a lot lower than they are today?

Like I said - some of these tall mountains contain marine life on their peaks.

If this is the case why do you disagree then that it's impossible for the entire globe to be covered with water if 70% of the earth is covered with water and the tall(est) mountains way back then were submerge under water?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by InFriNiTee
I've read over the entire thread at this point, and I'm wondering about what the book of Genesis wrote that said that the waters below were apart from the waters above. Are people in the thread stating that the waters above were always separated by them being the clouds, or are people saying there was a waterway above the earth?

If they are saying the latter, I would think it could be difficult to ever prove that hypothesis.

www.mechon-mamre.org...
From Genesis Chapter 1:

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Do you agree with me then these tall mountains (like the Himalayas) were under water at one point in time?

No.


If so do you agree with me that the mountains we see today are a lot lower than they are today?

Want to try that again?


Some of these tall mountains contain marine life on their peaks.

Yes, of course, lobsters and hammerhead sharks cavorting about the peaks of the Himalayas. See 'em every day.


If this is the case why do you disagree then that it's impossible for the entire globe to be covered with water if 70% of the earth is covered with water and the tall(est) mountains way back then were submerge under water?

For reasons you are clearly incapable of understanding, despite having had them kindly explained to you at least a dozen times over, in this thread and elsewhere.

Put a sock in it, troll.


edit on 2/1/12 by Astyanax because: of a URL.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Do you agree with me then these tall mountains (like the Himalayas) were under water at one point in time?

No.


If so do you agree with me that the mountains we see today are a lot lower than they are today?

Want to try that again?


Some of these tall mountains contain marine life on their peaks.

Yes, of course, lobsters and hammerhead sharks cavorting about the peaks of the Himalayas. See 'em every day.


If this is the case why do you disagree then that it's impossible for the entire globe to be covered with water if 70% of the earth is covered with water and the tall(est) mountains way back then were submerge under water?

For reasons you are clearly incapable of understanding, despite having had them kindly explained to you at least a dozen times over, in this thread and elsewhere.

Put a sock in it, troll.


edit on 2/1/12 by Astyanax because: of a URL.


So can you clarify your rantings?

Were the mountains back then are a lot lower that they are today and that at one point in time these tall mountains peaks were under water?

Are you disagreeing with these factual statements?

That's all i wann know from your rants.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





If this is the case why do you disagree then that it's impossible for the entire globe to be covered with water if 70% of the earth is covered with water and the tall(est) mountains way back then were submerge under water?


Part of the soil and rock now on top of the mountain was at one point at the ocean floor. Over billions of years, that soil was shifted upwards through PLATE TECTONICS. And given that a ton of soil does NOT contain any signs of marine fossils, your argument that this one soil/rock sample in the Himalayas are somehow proof that everything was submerged at one point in time is laughable. Those mountains weren't submerged...they were NEVER submerged. The soil and rock they're made of however were at one point in time. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Look, we know EXACTLY why those seashells are up there, and it doesn't involve the entire planet being covered in water. Even worse for you, we know for a fact that even when the planet's oceans formed, it was NEVER fully covered in water. Why? Because there isn't enough liquid water in on the planet to fully cover it!!! And there's ZERO objective evidence suggesting it was at one point fully covered.

In short, I'm not sure why you bring up those seashells...because science fully explains how they got there, and they're definitely not proof of the planet being fully submerged at one point in time. Even worse, the geological record debunks that entire silly global flood myth


By the way, this is getting really silly. You bring up those seashells in every 2nd thread, and every time people tell you that you should read up on plate tectonics...because it's OBVIOUS you don't understand it. The problem is, it's not simply that you don't know, you IGNORE those facts on purpose...and simply go on bringing up a silly argument that's been debunked dozens of times. Are you here to dumb down the people on purpose?
edit on 2-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Plate tectonics, the collision of the Indian sub-continent with Asia causing the uplift in the Himalayas, and basic geology don't fit in very well with Biblical thought. Remember that in Biblical terms, the earth is only 6,000-4,000 years old. In geological time, that's a mere moment.

Let's just go with "It's magic" and leave at that, shall we? Easier on everyone.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
www.pbs.org...

Here's the exact process of how the Himalayas were formed, with an easy to follow, step by step diagram. This should clear up your questions about them being underwater and how the fossils ended up there.
edit on 2-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join