A space cloud responsible for Great Flood, Firmament & Atlantis?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Marduk

You seem to be unaware of how rock is made... Rock takes millions of years

Do you have any Proof whatsoever for that statement? Seriously, you dance around on your pedestal, but your substance is purely smug.

]

Yes, I have geology, you have creationism

Creationism is a collection of cultists who don't have a clue how anything works and are intellectually redundant
So here's a childrens website for you
www.cotf.edu...
please read and try to understand it before you respond

While we're here, perhaps you can explain to everyone where Cain and Abels wives came from...

originally posted by: Marduk

Yes, I have geology, you have creationism

When did I quote any bible passages or even mention creationism? I simply explained Gibbs Free energy and how it clearly indicates that the formation of rocks (such as silicates and limestone) is a spontaneous process.

While we're here, perhaps you can explain to everyone where Cain and Abels wives came from...

What does this have to do with the quickness in which rocks (oxides, etc) form from their reactants? If you actually are wanting an answer to your questions there are many possible explanations. Here's the simplest:

"The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters." (Genesis 5:4)

originally posted by: cooperton

Gibbs Free Energy is used to determine whether a reaction is spontaneous or not. Silica, the most common rock in the earth's crust, for example, is formed spontaneously - along with most of the other rocks such as CaCO3 (limestone). Both limestone and silica release about 1,000,000J/mol of reaction (meaning it's spontaneous as f$%k)

While it precipitates quickly in test tubes, in nature it's a different story. Limestones are the remains of diatoms and corals (intermixed with shells). It takes quite awhile to build up layers of limestone-- and shale beds (shale is metamorphic.)

In addition, rocks aren't a single solid element. granites and basalts form fairly quickly once they reach the surface, but sandstone is a product of weathered granites and basalts. It takes a long time to wear that down. The best example of this that comes to mind is the buried Ouichata mountains and the Woodbine formation that contains decomposed minerals from these mountains. And think of caves - how long it took to create stalactites and columns. The park docents measure the speed of formation and it's very very slow.

I suggest you find a better site than Answers in Genesis -- most Christians avoid it because his arguments are so terribly flawed that they're easy to overturn.

originally posted by: Byrd

In addition, rocks aren't a single solid element. granites and basalts form fairly quickly once they reach the surface, but sandstone is a product of weathered granites and basalts. It takes a long time to wear that down. The best example of this that comes to mind is the buried Ouichata mountains and the Woodbine formation that contains decomposed minerals from these mountains. And think of caves - how long it took to create stalactites and columns. The park docents measure the speed of formation and it's very very slow.

The speed of rock formation is demonstrated by tree matter (still vertical) being caught in geological columns:

Pic, Pic 2, etc.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Byrd

In addition, rocks aren't a single solid element. granites and basalts form fairly quickly once they reach the surface, but sandstone is a product of weathered granites and basalts. It takes a long time to wear that down. The best example of this that comes to mind is the buried Ouichata mountains and the Woodbine formation that contains decomposed minerals from these mountains. And think of caves - how long it took to create stalactites and columns. The park docents measure the speed of formation and it's very very slow.

The speed of rock formation is demonstrated by tree matter (still vertical) being caught in geological columns:

Pic, Pic 2, etc.

Excellent point, and one I'd forgotten.

originally posted by: cooperton
The speed of rock formation is demonstrated by tree matter (still vertical) being caught in geological columns:

Pic, Pic 2, etc.

The speed of deposition of sediments (in some rare cases) which later become rocks is demonstrated by such vertical tree trunks found in said sediments But once the truck was buried in sediments it would have fossilised the same as if it had been lying horizontally. All it proves is that extreme floods (and volcanic eruptions producing massive depths of ash) occurred in the past as now.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

trunk, not truck!!!!

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: cooperton
The speed of rock formation is demonstrated by tree matter (still vertical) being caught in geological columns:

Pic, Pic 2, etc.

The speed of deposition of sediments (in some rare cases) which later become rocks is demonstrated by such vertical tree trunks found in said sediments

But once the truck was buried in sediments it would have fossilised the same as if it had been lying horizontally. All it proves is that extreme floods (and volcanic eruptions producing massive depths of ash) occurred in the past as now.

And landslides. Even under the ocean.
Every bed of limestone is different. Plenty of places where the same layer varies largely in depth, due to things like tsunamis stirring things up, collapsing existing rises, etc.
On the other hand, many rocks are formed very quickly indeed. Basalt comes to mind.

Harte

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
(Sigh)
Once again there is no evidence that Atlantis ever existed outside of Plato's one book that mentions it - a book that he never even finished. The timings he mentions in it makes no sense (he talked about Athens being the main enemy of Atlantis, despite the fact that Athens didn't exist in 9,000BC) and no-one else ever referred to it.

In the video I explain it's not about Atlantis itself, but the notion that there was a more advanced race of man alive at some point, which seems to be a common trend in history. And if they were alive they would have most likely taken control of the coastal lands.

Thus if a massive flood did hit the Earth, the people most likely to survive would be those in the high lands.....the less advanced people.

originally posted by: westrock2000


In the video I explain it's not about Atlantis itself, but the notion that there was a more advanced race of man alive at some point, which seems to be a common trend in history. .

Its a common trend in pseudo history which has been crushed and shown to be false time and time again by real historians...

originally posted by: westrock2000
And if they were alive they would have most likely taken control of the coastal lands..

Early civilisations were based around rivers, not coasts. Egypt was on the Nile, Mesopotamia was on the Tigris and Euphrates and the Harappan civilisation was on the Sarasvati river..

originally posted by: westrock2000
Thus if a massive flood did hit the Earth, the people most likely to survive would be those in the high lands.....the less advanced people.

There is no geological evidence of a massive flood hitting the earth. None whatsoever. Did you actually do any research for this thread or is it all based on assumption...
There is a wealth of scientific evidence that shows it couldn't have happened...

The fact that you've gone to a Biblical flood story which didn't happen, Atlantis which didn't exist and the firmament which was a fictional wall made of brass for your evidence speaks volumes..

a reply to: westrock2000

hummpff I must disagree.
I'd say that any civilization with good knowledge of building boats and fishery's would have the best opportunities to survive any big flooding of a huge part of their living space.
...
most if not all higher up civilizations would lose a lot of their ability to make food and dependency of trading for necessary living goods.
the small riverboats and bad navigation skills won't be able to go out far in the huge open waters.

originally posted by: MardukThere is no geological evidence of a massive flood hitting the earth. None whatsoever. Did you actually do any research for this thread or is it all based on assumption...
There is a wealth of scientific evidence that shows it couldn't have happened...

The fact that you've gone to a Biblical flood story which didn't happen, Atlantis which didn't exist and the firmament which was a fictional wall made of brass for your evidence speaks volumes.. [/post]

abcnews.go.com...

***"We went in there to look for the flood," he said. "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under."

Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred.***

discovermagazine.com...

***Bretz found exotic granite boulders perched on basalt cliffs hundreds of feet above the highest recorded river level. In the scablands, a desolate region stripped of soil, he came across dry waterfalls and potholes hundreds of feet above the modern river. Gigantic gravel bars deposited within dry valleys implied deep, fast-flowing water. Streamlined hills rose like islands, extending more than 100 feet above the scoured-out channelways.

He realized the chaotic landscape had been carved by an enormous flood that chewed deep channels through hundreds of feet of solid basalt. The ancient flood deposited an enormous delta around Portland, Oregon, backing up flow into the Willamette Valley. The waters, he eventually realized, could have come from catastrophic drainage of Lake Missoula, an ancient, glacier-dammed lake in western Montana.***

oh. research.
and I don't think anyone will consider ABC News and Discover Magazine to be fundamentalist sites

a reply to: ElGoobero

Why post irrelevancy
Ballard was looking for the biblical flood, he didn't find it, he found a local flood in an area which wasn't populated by the biblical authors, which happened way in the past, before the timescale that the bible lays out for its events

At some point, you will have to do some actual research, rather than being spoon fed baloney from people making money from peoples ignorance

This is the Bible
And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made.
And he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground.
But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth; and he put forth his hand, and took her, and brought her in unto him into the ark.

This is Gilgamesh
When a seventh day arrived I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a swallow and released it. The swallow went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a raven and released it. The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To deny that the biblical story is based on Gilgamesh is to admit that you are a fundamentalist Christian who is intellectually redundant.


The authors of the Biblical flood story were employed as librarians in the library of Ashurbanipal. They were employed to translate old Sumerian tablets into diplomatic Akkadian and Assyrian. So its well known that they were aware of the Gilgamesh epic, they even signed their translations "Rabbi"

So you have, a global flood story based on a global flood story.

But Gilgamesh in turn is based on the epic of Atrahasis and in the intervening years the story was exaggerated, Atrahasis talks of a riverine flood which covered the land, not the earth. However the Sumerian word for land is Ki.
The Sumerian word for the earth is Kisar. So someone went wrong with the translation.

So the flood story of the bible is also based on a riverine flood, not a global flood, for which as I stated earlier, there is no evidence whatsoever, unless you're that fundamentalist I mentioned earlier....

Ballard made this famous statement at the time
"Noah's Ark Great Flood may have happened,"
which shows at least a couple of things
1. Robert Ballard is not a historian and doesn't understand history
2. Robert Ballard is clueless, I didn't see an explanation of where the water came from to drown the earth, or how all the animals fit on the Ark. Why its almost as if he was just getting his profile up to gain funding...


So please, keep your local flood stories out of the mix, we know that there were local floods, earth is 4/5 water after all. We also know that the biblical flood story didn't happen.

a reply to: Marduk

Not only is all of what you posted true, add in that material Ballard initially claimed was dated several KA BP turned out to be approximately 200 years old and other material he claimed was polished stone turned out to be wood. Other elements at "site 82" which were "identified" by Ballard as wattle and daub in 2000 have now been shown to be nothing more than wood. The vast majority of the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis has been falsified. You just don't see biblical literalists chomping at the bit to air corrections and admit errors because Ballard and his team ran wild with what they assumed/ wanted to see in the side scan sonar images. That's why the last reports on this are from '03. If there was anything to it, more work would have been done in the intervening seasons. But that's not what happened. Instead,
Ballard has moved on to other sites and doing what he does best, locating shipwrecks because no matter what apologists wish the outcome to be, Ballard isn't an Archaeologist. Don't get me wrong. His contributions regarding the location of long lost ships has been invaluable. His latching onto the BSD hypothesis just didn't have any legs and he has distanced himself from it.