World wide flood proof.

[edge]

A major event happened about 12,000 years ago which could have been the great world wide flood that is spoken about in the bible and through out myths of other cultures.



The discovery is consistent with a theory proposed by West and colleagues that a 3-mile-wide comet splintered over glaciers and ice sheets in eastern Canada about 12,900 years ago and wiped out man and beast.
"These would have been like ten thousand Tunguskas going off at once," said West, referring to a mid-air explosion over Siberia a century ago possibly caused by a fragmenting meteor.
Flaming fragments of the comet crashing to Earth sparked forests fires around the globe, West contends. The intense heat from the blasts set the very air on fire. North America's grassland, the furs of animals, the hair and clothing of humans — all would have been set ablaze.
West and his colleagues have proposed that the comet strike contributed to the extinction of several species of North American megafauna, including mammoths and mastodons, and led to the early demise of the Clovis culture, a Stone Age people who had only recently immigrated to the continent.
The multiple airbursts might have also caused large amounts of fresh water to be dumped into the Atlantic Ocean, temporarily disrupting currents and prompting a sudden global cold snap called the Younger Dryas period.
"The kind of evidence we are finding does suggest that climate change at the end of the last Ice Age was the result of a catastrophic event," said study team member Ken Tankersley, an anthropologist at the University of Cincinnati.



http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080707-canada-diamonds.html



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080506-comet-extinct.html
The trigger: No matter how it happened, experts agree that Earth got a shock to its system 12,900 years ago.

This would also explain evidence of fires across swaths of North America, Kennett said.
He and his colleagues have also found widespread and abundant minuscule diamonds and magnetic particles in the layer of Earth that dates to this time.
These features were formed in the extremely hot and high-pressure environment created by the series of explosions, Kennett suggests.

Radiocarbon dating and other data suggest that the mega fauna of South America survived for centuries after their cousins up north were wiped out, Fiedel said.
"You have to ask what kind of blast might peter out by the time it gets to Mexico and not have much effect on South America," Fiedel said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070523-comet-impact_2.html


Stone Age Hand Axes Found at Bottom of North Sea
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/52855987.html


The first retreat of ice from this link, but the second was the big one, about 12,900 years ago. That’s where the flood stories come into place so the difference is that you think it was a slow melt when in actuality it was quiet rapid.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-mammoths-meteor.html

How all these forests spread out all over the northern hemisphere is still another question and all in only 12,000 years, along with, all of the other vegetation.


I think it was God when he said, “I give you all”.


The Purcell Trench lobe dammed the 2,000-cubic-kilometer glacial Lake Missoula, which successively discharged as huge jökulhlaups that flowed to Spokane along the Rathdrum valley and from upper Pend Oreille River valley. From Spokane the great floods swept across the Channeled Scabland and down the Columbia River valley.
The West Kootenai and East Kootenai glaciers flowed across a high-relief landscape, terminating within a general upland. The Flathead lobe was more extensive than formerly inferred. Both the Flathead lobe and nearby alpine glaciers reached near-maximum positions during high stands of Lake Missoula and thus during the maximum stand of the Purcell Trench lobe.

The apparent absence of the Glacier Peak layer-G tephra within the northern part of its projected fallout area along with the occurrence of several jökulhlaups from glacial Lake Missoula after the Mount St. Helens set-S airfall suggest that much of the glaciated terrain east of the Cascade Range remained glaciated until about 13,000 years ago. In the North Cascade Range, erratics transported by the ice sheet up valleys to cirque floors indicate that, as the ice sheet disappeared, alpine glaciers did not rejuvenate much below the limits of modern glaciers. Although ice lobes both east and west of the Cascade Range generally retreated from terminal positions to the international boundary during the interval 14,000 to 11,000 years B.P., the lobes were not exactly in phase with each other. Particular stillstands and retreats were influenced by local conditions such as topography or seawater that did not affect all lobes equally.

If they all melted at once, ( the lobes ), then they would be in perfect phase with each other and what was described as a worldwide flood could have happened. Since it all comes to an abrupt halt about 12,000 years ago.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_ice_sheets.html

Does another myth become reality?
I think so...

[JoeEllison]

No.

Next?

[Jimbo07]

No.


I haven't gone through all the links yet, but... why not?

[JoeEllison]

I haven't gone through all the links yet, but... why not?

I have little doubt that there have been big floods, all over the world, that would reinforce the idea that flood myths had some sort of basis in reality. I object to the claim that there was a simultaneous worldwide flood as described in the Bible. Further, the twisting of reality to rationalize belief in the Bible is something else I object to.

I'm sure there were big floods pretty much everywhere people put down roots in 10,000 BCE... since people tended to settle in river valleys. When various groups got together, they all had similar stories of "great" floods wiping out their valley villages. It isn't too much of a stretch to assume that at some point those various people began to assume that the individual floods were all part of one great big flood.

Heck, here in Florida all of the older hurricanes kind of get blended into your memory as "that one really big one we had"... and I've only lived here 4 1/2 years!

[edge]

I feel that the time lines in both science and religion are off a bit, but through science there is in fact a correlation to a major event.
Not only that but the evidence I have found indicates a great sedimentation process that is visible in the most top layers that have been laid down in recent history that had to come from a great amount/volume of water.
To just say no is foolish.
There are many links to verify this event.
I'll let you all ponder it for a while.

[Tricky]

If all the glaciers in the world and all the ice in the ice caps melted, the water would still not cover the earth.

And of course, there is no geologic record of such a thing happening. Ice melting would leave all sorts of geomorphic features that would be very recognizable, as anyone who studies glaciers can tell you.

Oddly enough, a large meteorite or comet impact might conceivably start some fires, but on the whole, it would make the earth cooler due to the ash, dust and/or water vapor blocking the suns rays. After Krakatoa erupted in 1883, dumping ash and sulfur into the atmosphere, the winters were measurably colder for five years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#Global_climate) If it persisted for any length of time, it would cause there there be more water in glaciers and ice-caps, not less.

It is clear that Edge has not understood those National Geographic articles he has linked, but only tried to wedge them into his diluvian delusions.

[Jimbo07]

I have little doubt that there have been big floods, all over the world, that would reinforce the idea that flood myths had some sort of basis in reality. I object to the claim that there was a simultaneous worldwide flood as described in the Bible.

Even a "great flood" wouldn't have to cover every point of land, to appear Biblical on a local level. If there was some giant meteor/comet induced tsunami, how else could such people possibly interpret it?


Further, the twisting of reality to rationalize belief in the Bible is something else I object to.

Oh, agreed. The question was, "Does another myth become reality?" At some points, I could argue yes. However, a myth having a basis in reality has nothing to do with a supernatural event occurring!

there is in fact a correlation to a major event.
Not only that but the evidence I have found indicates a great sedimentation process that is visible in the most top layers that have been laid down in recent history that had to come from a great amount/volume of water.

After agreeing that events which come down to us in stories may have a physical basis, I hope you're not going to burn me by really making this into a YEC argument such as flash canyon carving and flash sediment deposition...

:boxedin:

[Tricky]

I feel that the time lines in both science and religion are off a bit, but through science there is in fact a correlation to a major event.
Not only that but the evidence I have found indicates a great sedimentation process that is visible in the most top layers that have been laid down in recent history that had to come from a great amount/volume of water.
To just say no is foolish.
There are many links to verify this event.
I'll let you all ponder it for a while.
This is absolutely untrue. Most sedimentation in the last 12,000 years has been normal deltaic and deep marine deposits, along with a lot of normal alluvial deposits. Flood deposits, or tempestites as they are sometimes called, are characterised by poor sorting and very mixed composition. This is in no way characteristic of the majority of Holocene or Pleistocene deposits.

There is no record of a worldwide flood. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. If someone has told you there is, they are either ignorant, lying, or deluded.

[Jimbo07]

Nuts.

:mad:

[joobz]

...That’s where the flood stories come into place so the difference is that you think it was a slow melt when in actuality it was quiet rapid...

If they all melted at once, ( the lobes ), then they would be in perfect phase with each other and what was described as a worldwide flood could have happened. Since it all comes to an abrupt halt about 12,000 years ago.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/G...ce_sheets.html (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_ice_sheets.html)
Does another myth become reality?
I think so...
Well, in order for the "Worldwide flood story" to be said possible, you have to show evidence that this event 12,900 years indeed resulted in a world wide flood. The last time I checked, North America does not equal "world wide".

One of your sources even commented on the inherent lack of effect noted in south america.


"There's the apparent lack of synchrony with what goes on in South America," he noted.
Radiocarbon dating and other data suggest that the megafauna of South America survived for centuries after their cousins up north were wiped out, Fiedel said.
"You have to ask what kind of blast might peter out by the time it gets to Mexico and not have much effect on South America," Fiedel said. Kennett agreed that this could be seen as a discrepancy.

Further, even in the blast area and the blast area that was the greatest effected:
Also around this time, the prehistoric Clovis culture disappeared in North America, while other ancient cultures such as the Folsom began to flourish.

According to the biblical flood story, only Noah and those on his boat survived the flood. How can a completely independant culture "flourish" if all humanity but noah were wiped out?


Sorry, but the data does not support this being the great, worldwide flood. I'm certain the bible account is based upon a real flood, but the accounts of it's size has been greatly exaggerated.

[Civilized Worm]

12'000 years ago? The world wasn't around then!

[joobz]

If all the glaciers in the world and all the ice in the ice caps melted, the water would still not cover the earth.

And of course, there is no geologic record of such a thing happening. Ice melting would leave all sorts of geomorphic features that would be very recognizable, as anyone who studies glaciers can tell you.

Oddly enough, a large meteorite or comet impact might conceivably start some fires, but on the whole, it would make the earth cooler due to the ash, dust and/or water vapor blocking the suns rays. After Krakatoa erupted in 1883, dumping ash and sulfur into the atmosphere, the winters were measurably colder for five years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#Global_climate) If it persisted for any length of time, it would cause there there be more water in glaciers and ice-caps, not less.

It is clear that Edge has not understood those National Geographic articles he has linked, but only tried to wedge them into his diluvian delusions.
I agree. It seems rather ethnocentric to think that evidence of a north american event equals worldwide.

[Freethinker]

The concept is ridiculous. Even if all the glaciers melted at the same time, and Noah pulled a whole new set of glaciers out of his butt and melted them too, you still wouldn't have anywhere near enough water to flood the planet. Posting this is proof of nothing but your inability to grasp the scale of such an event, and your ability to ignore overwhelming evidence that it didn't and couldn't happen.

[Correa Neto]

No.

The world is just 6Ky old, as any real Christian will know.

No chances of anything being twice as old than the world. Its a lie Satan created and is being retold by deluded atheist scientists whose souls are going to burn in HELLFIRE forever for this. Satan wants to move you away from God so your soul will also burn in HELLFIRE forever.

[Daylight]

This is absolutely untrue. Most sedimentation in the last 12,000 years has been normal deltaic and deep marine deposits, along with a lot of normal alluvial deposits. Flood deposits, or tempestites as they are sometimes called, are characterised by poor sorting and very mixed composition. This is in no way characteristic of the majority of Holocene or Pleistocene deposits.

There is no record of a worldwide flood. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. If someone has told you there is, they are either ignorant, lying, or deluded.

Semi-related

On the Discovery Channel (I know) they had a show on how the water level rose in the Black Sea. It was due to a cliff wall (with the Aegean Sea?) coming down.

Is this another Geology by Media or is there some science behind it?

[shemp]

I'll let you all ponder it for a while.

OK, I will...
































Nah, still "no".

[Skeptic Ginger]

12'000 years ago? The world wasn't around then!Pith nom :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

A major event happened about 12,000 years ago which could have been the great world wide flood that is spoken about in the bible...

Only if it correlated with population bottlenecks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_bottleneck) for every species on Earth, which this event does not.

[zenotter]

I direct your attention to this SkepticReport on That Silly Flood (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm).

My favorite is the part about koalas.

[Beerina]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-mammoths-meteor.html

How all these forests spread out all over the northern hemisphere is still another question and all in only 12,000 years, along with, all of the other vegetation.

I think it was God when he said, “I give you all”.

That's something like 1/10 of a mile per year. I can see birds, wind, and whatnot distributing tree seedlings far faster than that.



I have little doubt that there have been big floods, all over the world, that would reinforce the idea that flood myths had some sort of basis in reality. I object to the claim that there was a simultaneous worldwide flood as described in the Bible.

The same science that would be used to prove this, i.e. looking at dirt layers for one consistent all around the globe, is the same science that actually already disproves it, and that the Earth is 12,000 years old rather than 12,000 x 12,000 * 32 years old.

[Beerina]

Even a "great flood" wouldn't have to cover every point of land, to appear Biblical on a local level.

While true to form a myth, it would have to be false if the Bible were to be the true Word of God.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And this is why all cultures around the World have fables about great explosions in the sky and a universal fire that burnt everything up.

No. Wait . . . . :o

[Foster Zygote]

Semi-related

On the Discovery Channel (I know) they had a show on how the water level rose in the Black Sea. It was due to a cliff wall (with the Aegean Sea?) coming down.

Is this another Geology by Media or is there some science behind it?

Actually there is very good evidence for this event. Bob (Titanic) Ballard is a geologist by trade and has done a lot of investigation into it.

[Foster Zygote]

If all the glaciers in the world and all the ice in the ice caps melted, the water would still not cover the earth.

And of course, there is no geologic record of such a thing happening. Ice melting would leave all sorts of geomorphic features that would be very recognizable, as anyone who studies glaciers can tell you.

Oddly enough, a large meteorite or comet impact might conceivably start some fires, but on the whole, it would make the earth cooler due to the ash, dust and/or water vapor blocking the suns rays. After Krakatoa erupted in 1883, dumping ash and sulfur into the atmosphere, the winters were measurably colder for five years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#Global_climate) If it persisted for any length of time, it would cause there there be more water in glaciers and ice-caps, not less.

It is clear that Edge has not understood those National Geographic articles he has linked, but only tried to wedge them into his diluvian delusions.

Edge just copied and pasted a post of his from the recent Noah's Ark thread. Oddly, he doesn't seem to have transfered any of the post pointing out the problems with his claims. He doesn't, for example, seem to realize that nowhere in the NG article about the controversial comet impact theory does it say that the comet is claimed to have melted all the ice in the world's glaciers. He simply makes the assumption that an explosion of heat energy great enough to start forest fires must also be adequate to melt glaciers that span whole continents and are miles thick. I'm no geologist, but it seems to me that with an energy release that great melting glaciers might be pretty much moot as far as human survival goes.

[Silentknight]

It's like this, see. There's evidence that all parts of the world were covered in water, just not at the same time. Likewise, a creationist's brain shows signs of function 24 hours a day, just not in a row.

[GeeMack]

A major event happened about 12,000 years ago which could have been the great world wide flood that is spoken about in the bible and through out myths of other cultures.

[snip]


Oh, I get it. You're talking about that old myth about a worldwide flood that was caused by some supernatural being making it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, and you're trying to demonstrate by way of evidence that it's not a true story. Okay. But most of us were already pretty sure of that anyway. :)

[godless dave]

A major event happened about 12,000 years ago which could have been the great world wide flood that is spoken about in the bible and through out myths of other cultures.


Except that it wasn't world-wide.

[triadboy]

It's obvious to me that the Biblical flood story is a handed-down tale from the Tigris - Euphrates region - the one mentioned in Gilgamesh.

[Ocelot]

The last time I checked, North America does not equal "world wide".


That reminds me when was the last time a non US team played in the "World Series"?

;)

[RenaissanceBiker]

12k years ago is about 6k years before the culture that began this myth.

[Mr. Skinny]

That reminds me when was the last time a non US team played in the "World Series"?

;)
The Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series in 1992 and 1993.

[Bikewer]

My take on the "flood legend" thing is pretty simple; if we go back far enough into human pre-history, nascent civilizations and populations were quite small.
A disastrous flood in a budding civilization could have provided legends and stories that quickly spread into populations in general; especially if the victims were displaced by that thoroughly local flood.
A good story is a good story, and would have been incorporated into many just-forming cultures.

[edge]

Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 years ago.[2]



http://www.livescience.com/history/080605-ancient-shoes.html
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/adam.html



And this is why all cultures around the World have fables about great explosions in the sky and a universal fire that burnt everything up.

No. Wait . . . .

I think there is a reference to great heat, but any one near such an event wouldn’t be around to survive let alone to tell us of the event.
Also you have to take into account that most civilizations were nearer to the equator than near the ice sheets except the Neanderthals but not all of them some were closer to the mid east such as Spain and actually some bones of Neanderthals have been found in the Middle East.

zenotter :

There's even embarrassing mention of creatures unknown to science, such as unicorns.



(Creationists estimate that the flood took place about 4000-5000 ybp [years before present], which was the height of the Egyptian civilization.) -Adam Levenstein

Like I said the genealogical records are not perfect since they skipped generations of those children who weren’t in the inheritance for the record for various reasons and science aging techniques aren’t totally accurate which gives us leeway in both directions.
Creationists might be off too and this is the point of putting science together with history as it is written to make them both compatible in as far as working together.
I am going off even their beaten paths to the real truth about proof as I am using what is known through science and history which also indicates that the oldest living trees are around 12,000 years old and there is no reason why they can’t be older than that date, unless?
Tha’s funny as there is a unicorn that has been born to deify your illogical mention of such a creature.


Joobz :

I agree. It seems rather ethnocentric to think that evidence of a North American event equals worldwide.

Joobz remember what the Shoemaker levee, (don't know if I spelled that right), comet did to Jupiter and how it broke up and the size of the impacts?
Even if it wasn’t as sizable and it broke up in four or five pieces, as the world rotated it could have covered the entire northern ice sheet with the fragments as it broke up, as it approached. This could have done some major things that are being discovered, not only then but by a meteor 20,000 or so thousand years earlier by a meteor.

"The surprise was the tusks were dating back to 30,000 to 34,000 years ago," Firestone said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-mammoths-meteor.html



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080506-comet-extinct.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070523-comet-impact.html




Tricky says,… by the way thanks:

Flood deposits, or tempestites as they are sometimes called, are characterized by poor sorting and very mixed composition. This is in no way characteristic of the majority of Holocene or Pleistocene deposits.

There is no record of a worldwide flood. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. If someone has told you there is, they are, ignorant, lying, or deluded.



View the high quality.

Wave of sand, at the east end of the valley, cut through by the creek, from a recent flood.
This extended across to the north side of the valley and to the west of here is the center of the valley eighty miles west of this valley is the Pacific.
The next valley from here, is about fifty-five miles to the south and is similar in deposits, so either the mountains weren’t as high or the great flood covered these mountains.

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=uz3bbOvE5VU


Closer look at the lighter layering and lighter sand.

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=RMwYSGthmHw&feature=user

Closer look at the wave from lapping.

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=9k35BiPbtbo

Entire wave deposit.

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=bPZP1f...eature=related

Sand deposit in the center of town lowest spot.
Six to about twelve feet deep and the top layer, laid down last, the lightest material, sand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2bnE-k9Pw8



The other side of the creek in the heart of this valley.
12,000 Years ago major event happened.
It’s not very mixed composition but there is a small amount in this video, if it was winter here now when I filmed this the vegetation wouldn’t be here and you would see more of the bank here.
The mixing here would be great if you were right, but as far as I remember this tiny little amount is all there is, the rest is solid sand all along this part of where the creek cut through. The other thing to note here is that this creek has not meandered through this part of the valley since glacial times it is in the exact same spot now as it was then about 12,000 years ago or you would have what is in the video that shows you the sorting that the creek does in my previous video. What the Creek Does with Sand Now.
In that video you will see the mixing you are talking about which has happened since the glacial times as it cut through the giant wave of sand that was force into the narrow farthest corner of the valley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAPS1tXlh8E

What sand looks like when a creek moves it. Compaired with the giant wave of sand. Same location as the giant wave of sand.2 different causes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSvhgpbdGIM


And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Joshua 24:15




Eleven Reasons Why Noah's Flood Had To Be Universal:
1. The language of the account over and over again expresses totality (Gen. 7:18-24). 2. If 150 days were needed for the water to recede, it must have been universal.
3. The size of the ark indicates that this was no local flood.
4. If the flood was only local, why was the ark necessary at all?
5. The purpose of the flood was the punishment of world-wide sin. A local flood would not do; some could have escaped by just traveling to another region.
6. There are universal traditions of people with accounts of the flood.
7. The promise of no future floods (Gen. 9:15) would be false if it had been if it had been only a local flood.
8. A universal flood is the clearest meaning of the text and has priority.
9. Ending ice ages, dissolving canopies, continental drifting, and/or changes in the angle of the earth were all used to create necessary conditions.
10. The mountains of Ararat are high and since water seeks it own level and the ark came to rest there, they must have been covered.
11. There are world-wide traces of the flood. A universal flood is geologically supportable.
The negative side.
If it was local, then the whole Genesis account is simply a lie:
1. No possibility of forewarning
2. No time to build a boat
3. No reason to save any animals
4. Since Mesopotamia is located west of the Zagros Range and south of the Turkish Ararat Range, the Mesopotamians knew about those mountains and lied about "all the high mountains everywhere" being covered.
Localized flooding, such as that which produced the Pacific Northwest scablands and cut the Columbia Gorge can be devastating. We see flooding in China and India and the various monsoon countries that are awful. Flash flooding in dry areas can be deadly. But these are all missing the elements of THE flood story which is found in so many cultures around the world: all men were killed except a family who survived on a boat and saved the animals with them; a family who was forewarned so they could build that boat for that flood. The Noah story really has to stand or fall as a worldwide flood due to those elements in it. There is too much "wrong" with it for it to be a story of a local flood, no matter how bad.
Jesus referred to the Flood as factual ("as it was in the days of Noah...") and so claiming it was a lie makes Jesus a liar. Peter, also, referred to a world destroyed by water. One has to discard the words of both to reinterpret the Flood story.
Another thing a local flood cannot explain is the change in the ecosystem so that man could not live as long as the antediluvians. The average lifespan seems to have been cut in half (approximately) at the time of Peleg and then kept decreasing from there until they reached a top of 120 years. In fact, Abraham is listed as dying at, I think, 175 and is referred to as being of ripe old age at that point! Quite a difference compared with the lifespans given for the antediluvians. No localized flood would cause this to happen. The ecosystem change of a universal flood might have resulted in a much higher percentage of UV radiation reaching the ground, which could have accomplished just that. In other words, the change in the world environment might have been the means by which God fulfilled Gen. 6:3.
The best Biblically-based argument I know of that the Flood in Genesis was not merely some exaggerated local event but a world-wide one is Gen. 9:11. There God promised never to use a flood to destroy all flesh or the earth again. Since we still see deaths from localized flooding, God must have been talking about something truly global - or else Genesis is a lie.
Geological evidence also tends to indicate a global flood/floods origin of the sedimentary deposits that comprise the geological column. The fossils are entombed in sediments (sandstone, limestone and shale) which were liberated and deposited by water and many show literally no signs of maceration or significant decomposition. In addition the sedimentary layers are described as laterally continuous or horizontally indefinite. They completely blanket every continent and the underlying layers are naturally exposed only where erosion or uplift have occurred and simply taper off at the continental shelf. How can flood generated sediments be laterally continuous throughout an entire landmass without the flood exclusively having been responsible for the deaths of those fossilized within? And how can layers on the various continents be so closely associated temporally, and by constituents without them being caused by the same event, and therefore one which was globally encompassing?
If the story in the Bible had not preceded the discovery and realization of these laterally continuous sediments and the fossils contained within, then a global flood interpretation would have been inevitable. However, since doing so would require scientists to acknowledge the reintroduction of the animals which were alive at the event, and would therefore closely parallel the Biblical account and a miraculous and possible divine intervention; then to a secular scientific community such a thing could not possibly happen and another interpretation must therefore be sought.
All of Geology can be explained as the re-arranging of the earth's crust by the Flood. An example: the San Fernando Valley, and all of So. California, has a depth of 25,000 feet (feet!) of Flood material washed in, from probably the Grand Canyon! (I giant erosional drainage ditch!) There are some 20,000 volcanoes on the floor of the Pacific ocean, remnants of the Flood and the breaking up of the 'Great Deep' spoken of in Scripture. The Lompoc Fossil deposits were buried so suddenly that many huge (90 foot long) whales were captured intact!
Global Flood legends are found all over the world, and are difficult to pass off as just a lot of different local floods, particularly because, despite real differences, they have remarkable commonplaces which point back to one original event, the story of which got corrupted in various ways in the retelling over time.
http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml

Anything you want is in his library, this is for this Christians that read this.
http://www.ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml


There’s evidence but you refuse to even think about it, but things are being reveled every day, in these times.

RenaissanceBiker says:


12k years ago is about 6k years before the culture that began this myth.


What I see is that they may be older than we suspect and if you put it all together it may just be true.


Pictures of:
Alleged Anchor stone of the ark.
Unicorn in today’s world.
Possible ark with some convincing evidence located there such as fossilized wood.
Polystrate fossil of a tree with layering that shouldn't be there.
The list goes on and on with even evidence of the giants and many other things that are hidden from us from even the Smithsonian institute.
Who’s deluded here you all believe everything that the government tells you and everything that scientists tell you who are bought and paid by for by our government to say only what they want you to know.

[fagin]

Wonder how Noah got to Aus to find a few Kangaroos, NZ for Kiwis etc?
Pray tell.
And those two typhoid viruses? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

[Foster Zygote]

I think there is a reference to great heat, but any one near such an event wouldn’t be around to survive let alone to tell us of the event.
The problem is that most of the cultures in North America, where you claim this blast to have occurred, continued to thrive. How do you address this issue?

Also, setting aside the fact that there is no geological evidence that the glaciers all melted at once, and that there wasn't enough water in the ice sheets to cover the Earth's surface, how much energy do you suppose it would take to melt such a massive, miles thick ice sheet all at once? What would the other effects of such a blast be?

[Furi]

I'm still wondering how all the marine life dealt with all that fresh water.

[aggle-rithm]

Who’s deluded here you all believe everything that the government tells you

Which government is that?

The government of MY country sure doesn't speak with a united voice.


and everything that scientists tell you who are bought and paid by for by our government to say only what they want you to know.


Then it's fortunate that what they tell us happens to correspond with reality to a very high level of accuracy.

[aggle-rithm]

and that there wasn't enough water in the ice sheets to cover the Earth's surface,

!!!!!!

You mean Waterworld wasn't scientifically accurate??

I am SO disillusioned...

[joobz]

Joobz :

Joobz remember what the Shoemaker levee, (don't know if I spelled that right), comet did to Jupiter and how it broke up and the size of the impacts?
Even if it wasn’t as sizable and it broke up in four or five pieces, as the world rotated it could have covered the entire northern ice sheet with the fragments as it broke up, as it approached.
This in no way addresses my point. All they show is evidence of a potential hit in North America ~12000 years ago. Indeed, they show also that this blast was not powerful enough to make a signifigant effect on life in south america during that time. A flood would have been noted. it wasn't.

Your claim of multiple impacts is simply un supported fantasy.


This could have done some major things that are being discovered, not only then but by a meteor 20,000 or so thousand years earlier by a meteor.

"The surprise was the tusks were dating back to 30,000 to 34,000 years ago," Firestone said.
Becuase there was an impact 30,000 years ago, the impact 12,000 years resulted in the great flood???!??

That's like saying, my parents owned a car and I own a car. Therefore my car is the batmobile.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ice cores from the Greenland ice cap show conclusively that the World is at least ~150,000 years old. All this and more at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

Enjoy.
:cool:

[joobz]

Ice cores from the Greenland ice cap show conclusively that the World is at least ~150,000 years old. All this and more at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

Enjoy.
:cool:
How could Icecore sampling show ages of 150,000 years ago. ACcording to Edge, the icecaps melted to flood the world 12,000 years ago and then reformed.

According to his theory, this would mean that ice core samples should only date back to 12,000 years ago. Any evidence to suggest that the glaciers are older than 12,000 years would prove that his theory was incorrect.

Since multiple independant methods of age dating were used and all of them support that ice core samples date much farther back than 12,000 years (by an order of magnitude), it is safe to say that Edge's hypothesis was proven false.

As a person interested in sciencetific thinking and honesty, I think Edge will fully accept these findings and abandon the argument that the 12,000 year old impact did not result in a world wide flood.

[Furi]

The best Biblically-based argument I know of that the Flood in Genesis was not merely some exaggerated local event but a world-wide one is Gen. 9:11. There God promised never to use a flood to destroy all flesh or the earth again. Since we still see deaths from localized flooding, God must have been talking about something truly global - or else Genesis is a lie.

Gosh it culd be truly Global, or Else Genesis is a lie,

Hmm Let me ponder on that one Global Biblical Flood, Genesis is Fiction, Global Biblical Flood, Genesis is fiction.

*DING DING DING DING DING* We have a WINNNAR!!!! commiserations biblical flood but don't disappear just yet, we still have our comparitive mythology straw clutching competition, not to mention the fudge the evidence to fit the claim sulk off round

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm still wondering how all the marine life dealt with all that fresh water.

Totally scientific answer - The glacial melting in Edge's comet strike scenario wouldn't have effected marine life (at least that I can tell from the links)

Sincere answer - Influxes of fresh water into the oceans wouldn't necessarily effect marine life depending on dilution of salinity, plus there are a number of salt water species that can handle limited to prolonged time in fresh or brackish water.

Reality answer - Since the event Edge... and every other Creationist citing a specific localized delluvial event as evidence of Noah's flood doesn't evidence a world wide flood, your question isn't really the killer ap you think. Better to address the particulars of the events cited by Creationists and explain why they (the particulars), specifically, are falsified as being evidence of a world wide flood than to reply with what amounts to a quip.

[Furi]

I never really though of it as a killer question, just that I have heard so many differing answers from the ID crowd regarding aquatic life just wondering if they had settled down on anything definate yet, it is however like trying to get a coherant answer from a moon hoax believer or any other CT victim.

But when presented with such proofs that boil down to

"It had to be true because Jesus, Paul, God, The Bible said it was true, therefore it is true and by saying the events didn't happen you are saying therefore God, Paul, Jesus, Noah lied or didn't exist and as it is obvious they exist that cannot be so" is well just mind blowing. At least the Apollo Hoax Believers TRY (well some of them)

[Silentknight]

Eleven Reasons Why Noah's Flood Had To Be Universal:
1. The language of the account over and over again expresses totality (Gen. 7:18-24).
2. If 150 days were needed for the water to recede, it must have been universal.
3. The size of the ark indicates that this was no local flood.
4. If the flood was only local, why was the ark necessary at all?
5. The purpose of the flood was the punishment of world-wide sin. A local flood would not do; some could have escaped by just traveling to another region.
6. There are universal traditions of people with accounts of the flood.
7. The promise of no future floods (Gen. 9:15) would be false if it had been if it had been only a local flood.
8. A universal flood is the clearest meaning of the text and has priority.
9. Ending ice ages, dissolving canopies, continental drifting, and/or changes in the angle of the earth were all used to create necessary conditions.
10. The mountains of Ararat are high and since water seeks it own level and the ark came to rest there, they must have been covered.
11. There are world-wide traces of the flood. A universal flood is geologically supportable.

1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 - Using the bible to prove that the bible is true is circular reasoning.
3, 4 - The size of the ark was impossible, save additional miraculous intervention. But then the ark would not be necessary, which contradicts your own point.
6 - Yes, at different times, in different places, and with different morals to the story.
9, 11 - Confirmation bias. I say these things prove that the Olympian gods flooded the Earth, and the ark belonged to Deucalion, not Noah.

The negative side.
If it was local, then the whole Genesis account is simply a lie:
1. No possibility of forewarning
2. No time to build a boat
3. No reason to save any animals
4. Since Mesopotamia is located west of the Zagros Range and south of the Turkish Ararat Range, the Mesopotamians knew about those mountains and lied about "all the high mountains everywhere" being covered.
Localized flooding, such as that which produced the Pacific Northwest scablands and cut the Columbia Gorge can be devastating. We see flooding in China and India and the various monsoon countries that are awful. Flash flooding in dry areas can be deadly. But these are all missing the elements of THE flood story which is found in so many cultures around the world: all men were killed except a family who survived on a boat and saved the animals with them; a family who was forewarned so they could build that boat for that flood. The Noah story really has to stand or fall as a worldwide flood due to those elements in it. There is too much "wrong" with it for it to be a story of a local flood, no matter how bad.
There is too much wrong with this apologetic for it to make any sense at all. In other flood myths, there were sometimes survivors who fled to the mountains. Shipbuilding would be common in places prone to seasonal or periodic flooding. Animals would be saved for their livestock value, given that they were often the most valuable property one could own at the time. (Ever notice how animals were sacrificed in biblical times because of the sacrifice in monetary value they represented?) As for the use of terms like "all high mountains everywhere" and "whole world" have you never heard of hyperbole? I'm sure many baseball players have literally managed to hit the ball all the way to the moon too. :rolleyes:

Jesus referred to the Flood as factual ("as it was in the days of Noah...") and so claiming it was a lie makes Jesus a liar. Peter, also, referred to a world destroyed by water. One has to discard the words of both to reinterpret the Flood story.
Again, using the bible to prove the bible is true? All this shows is that the NT authors were aware of the Noahic fable. It doesn't prove they agreed with a literal interpretation of it, or even indicate what their interpretation was at all.

Another thing a local flood cannot explain is the change in the ecosystem so that man could not live as long as the antediluvians. The average lifespan seems to have been cut in half (approximately) at the time of Peleg and then kept decreasing from there until they reached a top of 120 years. In fact, Abraham is listed as dying at, I think, 175 and is referred to as being of ripe old age at that point! Quite a difference compared with the lifespans given for the antediluvians. No localized flood would cause this to happen. The ecosystem change of a universal flood might have resulted in a much higher percentage of UV radiation reaching the ground, which could have accomplished just that. In other words, the change in the world environment might have been the means by which God fulfilled Gen. 6:3.
Why stop at Abraham? A lot of biblical figures had ridiculously long lifespans that were in no way related to each other, or to real human lifespans. See Genesis 5 and 9:29 for some examples. It also wouldn't hurt to look up how the numbers used were symbolic, not literal.

The best Biblically-based argument I know of that the Flood in Genesis was not merely some exaggerated local event but a world-wide one is Gen. 9:11. There God promised never to use a flood to destroy all flesh or the earth again. Since we still see deaths from localized flooding, God must have been talking about something truly global - or else Genesis is a lie.
Ah, the argument from incomplete devastation, except inverted this time! I'm surprised you didn't give God credit for saving the few people that weren't wiped out in natural disasters, as proof that he exists. But thanks anyway for arguing in support of divine genocide, and that God still uses it to this day (except in an incomplete fashion).

Geological evidence also tends to indicate a global flood/floods origin of the sedimentary deposits that comprise the geological column. The fossils are entombed in sediments (sandstone, limestone and shale) which were liberated and deposited by water and many show literally no signs of maceration or significant decomposition. In addition the sedimentary layers are described as laterally continuous or horizontally indefinite. They completely blanket every continent and the underlying layers are naturally exposed only where erosion or uplift have occurred and simply taper off at the continental shelf. How can flood generated sediments be laterally continuous throughout an entire landmass without the flood exclusively having been responsible for the deaths of those fossilized within? And how can layers on the various continents be so closely associated temporally, and by constituents without them being caused by the same event, and therefore one which was globally encompassing?
If the story in the Bible had not preceded the discovery and realization of these laterally continuous sediments and the fossils contained within, then a global flood interpretation would have been inevitable. However, since doing so would require scientists to acknowledge the reintroduction of the animals which were alive at the event, and would therefore closely parallel the Biblical account and a miraculous and possible divine intervention; then to a secular scientific community such a thing could not possibly happen and another interpretation must therefore be sought.
All of Geology can be explained as the re-arranging of the earth's crust by the Flood. An example: the San Fernando Valley, and all of So. California, has a depth of 25,000 feet (feet!) of Flood material washed in, from probably the Grand Canyon! (I giant erosional drainage ditch!) There are some 20,000 volcanoes on the floor of the Pacific ocean, remnants of the Flood and the breaking up of the 'Great Deep' spoken of in Scripture. The Lompoc Fossil deposits were buried so suddenly that many huge (90 foot long) whales were captured intact!
No.

(And seriously, the Grand Canyon being carved by the flood? Do you have any idea how erosion of solid rock works?)

Global Flood legends are found all over the world, and are difficult to pass off as just a lot of different local floods, particularly because, despite real differences, they have remarkable commonplaces which point back to one original event, the story of which got corrupted in various ways in the retelling over time.
Here's another remarkable similarity. None of the authors of these flood stories used toilet paper! That must prove the global flood is true!

[Soapy Sam]

The younger Dryas glaciation ended rather suddenly.
We don't know why.
Suggested mechanisms include flipping of ocean currents from one stable attractor to another and a comet impact somewhere over the N.American ice sheet.

Both are speculative. We don't know. (This is the last - ie the most recent) large scale glaciation event, contemporaneous with human hunter / gatherer activity in the middle east and probably around the time humans first entered north America. We do know climate shifted from glacial to warm (probably warmer than today) over much of the n. hemisphere- and it did so on a scale of one human lifetime. No runaway greenhouse effect, no industrial revolution, no AGW: Hence my scepticism that we fully understand what is going on today, or that the present warming is a unique and entirely man made event.

Anyway- yes there were floods at the time, both in the new world and the old. The (most recent) refilling of the Black Sea Basin was likely one of these. (Or several of them- again the evidence is open to varied interpretations)

And yes, sea level rise since then has flooded huge areas of coastline including much of the southern North Sea, though it was probably another 6-7000 years before Britain was an island, so stone axes in the N.Sea are no surprise.

But nothing- absolutely nothing in any of this adds up to a global flood. The idea is ludicrous. Various large, local floods, yes, some of them catastrophic, some no doubt witnessed by people and remembered in verbal and later written culture for millennia.

It's an interesting time in human prehistory and there may be surprises to come- could there have been agriculture and cities before the Dryas cold snap? Personally I don't find that idea entirely incredible- I'm not talking high tech cities, but cities similar to those we know in the middle east from a few thousand years later. Maybe climate deterioration did throw human progress back a few millennia. A shred or three of evidence would be good though.

[zenotter]

It was ALIENS!!

Oh wait, I hear that was the latest Indy Jones movie... never mind...

[zenotter]

Oh wait... two photos that may be of interest, from a trip I took to Palo Duro Canyon not long ago.... see here (http://picasaweb.google.com/lindasbecker/May2008TripToCaprockCanyonsAndPaloDuroCanyon/photo#5211624816629247938) and here (http://picasaweb.google.com/lindasbecker/May2008TripToCaprockCanyonsAndPaloDuroCanyon/photo#5211624805435677826).

200 million years seems like a long time for a flood (ETA: in North America) to be around. Especially when humans, or Noah at least, wasn't on the scene.

[edge]

Any signs of the flood would be in the top or upper most layers not back in prehistoric times.
And I don't think that all the water was from the ice as it speaks of the great deep breaking up and the fountains of the earth being involved.
Did it cover all the mountaintops?
Don't know.
There is only a few places that have evidence remaining.

[Kotatsu]

Unicorn in today’s world.

I thought unicorns were supposed to be horses with a horn in their forehead, not roes a horn in the neck. Was I wrong?

I also don't see how this was hidden from anyone, seeing that there are several pictures of them when you google for "unicorn deer". Maybe you have some kind of filter in your modem that sorts some things out? The picture you posted has even been in National Geographic, and I hardly believe that would be possible if the unicorns were hidden by the Smithsonian.

[I Ratant]

:Maybe you have some kind of filter in your modem that sorts some things out?
.
It's not in the modem.
It's between the input senses and the grey matter.

[bellonax]

Tha’s funny as there is a unicorn that has been born to deify your illogical mention of such a creature.


Wouldn't the presence of a unicorn be a problem - weren't they supposed to have been wiped out in the flood? How did they survive?

Although a deer isn't much of a unicorn.

[zenotter]

Any signs of the flood would be in the top or upper most layers not back in prehistoric times.
And I don't think that all the water was from the ice as it speaks of the great deep breaking up and the fountains of the earth being involved.
Did it cover all the mountaintops?
Don't know.
There is only a few places that have evidence remaining.
The flood being between the purple and yellow layers in the first photo I linked to seems pretty upper layers to me. :confused:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Any signs of the flood would be in the top or upper most layers not back in prehistoric times.

Oh edgie, don't you keep up with claims by ICR, AIG, etc.? Except for the deepest bedrock layers all of the geological column is testament to the Flood. That's why the Grand Canyon which carves down into the Vishnu schist and then has more than half a billion years (according to "Evolutionary timescales") of sediment and deposits on top of it.

And I don't think that all the water was from the ice as it speaks of the great deep breaking up and the fountains of the earth being involved.

To quote Claus... "Evidence"?

Did it cover all the mountaintops?
Don't know.

According to Genesis it did. Why do you question the Bible?

There is only a few places that have evidence remaining.

Unfortunately for you, no, there are literally millions of places with evidence about the geological record of the Earth and none of them support there ever having been a global flood 4,000 years ago nor the Earth only being 6,000 years old.

[edge]

.
It's not in the modem.
It's between the input senses and the grey matter.

Your name suits you well.


An animal called the Re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns (Job 39:9-12, Ps 22:21, 29:6, Num 23:22, 24:8, Deut 33:17 comp. Ps 92:11), best fit the aurochs





Unicorns are not found in Greek mythology, but rather in accounts of natural history, for Greek writers of natural history were convinced of the reality of the unicorn, which they located in India, a distant and fabulous realm for them. The earliest description is from Ctesias who described them as wild asses, fleet of foot, having a horn a cubit and a half in length and colored white, red and black.

The pagan interpretation focuses on the medieval lore of beguiled lovers, whereas some Catholic writings interpret the unicorn and its death as the Passion of Christ. The unicorn has long been identified as a symbol of Christ by Catholic writers, allowing the traditionally pagan symbolism of the unicorn to become acceptable within religious doctrine. The original myths refer to a beast with one horn that can only be tamed by a virgin maiden; subsequently, some Catholic scholars translated this into an allegory for Christ's relationship with the Virgin Mary. Interestingly enough, the collective term for a grouping of unicorns is called a "blessing of unicorns".
The unicorn also figured in courtly terms: for some 13th century French authors such as Thibaut of Champagne and Richard de Fournival, the lover is attracted to his lady as the unicorn is to the virgin. With the rise of humanism, the unicorn also acquired more orthodox secular meanings, emblematic of chaste love and faithful marriage. It plays this role in Petrarch's Triumph of Chastity.
Marco Polo described them as:
scarcely smaller than elephants. They have the hair of a buffalo and feet like an elephant's. They have a single large black horn in the middle of the forehead... They have a head like a wild boar's… They spend their time by preference wallowing in mud and slime. They are very ugly brutes to look at. They are not at all such as we describe them when we relate that they let themselves be captured by virgins, but clean contrary to our notions.
It is clear that Marco Polo was describing a rhinoceros. In German, since the 16th century, Einhorn ("one-horn") has become a descriptor of the various species of rhinoceros.
The ancient Norwegians were said to believe the narwhal to have affirmed the existence of the unicorn. The unicorn horn was believed to stem from the narwhal tooth, which grows outward and projects from its upper jaw.
One suggestion is that the unicorn is based on the extinct animal Elasmotherium, a huge Eurasian rhinoceros native to the steppes, south of the range of the woolly rhinoceros of Ice Age Europe. Elasmotherium looked little like a horse, but it had a large single horn in its forehead. It became extinct about the same time as the rest of the glacial age megafauna[citation needed].
However, according to the Nordisk familjebok (Nordic Familybook) and science writer Willy Ley the animal may have survived long enough to be remembered in the legends of the Evenk people of Russia as a huge black bull with a single horn in the forehead.
In support of this claim, it has been noted that the 13th century traveller Marco Polo claimed to have seen a unicorn in Java, but his description makes it clear to the modern reader that he actually saw a Javan Rhinoceros. Perhaps additional supporting evidence can be found in the fact that a rhinoceros' horn reacts with alkaloids by turning a different color[citation needed]. A majority of the medieval poisons were made from alkaloids[citation needed], which coincides with the myth that unicorn horns change color when a poison in placed within them.
A single-horned goat
The connection that is sometimes made with a single-horned goat derives from the vision of Daniel:
And as I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Daniel 8:5


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

Take your pick these are one horned animals, one is a one tooth/horned animal, all are uni/horned.
Speculation of which one was left out of the ark and not saved is just that.

[Furi]

Take your pick these are one horned animals, one is a one tooth/horned animal, all are uni/horned.
Speculation of which one was left out of the ark and not saved is just that.

Thanks I actually have an ear worm now that I don't mind for the moment :p

*earworm sings*
It was a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater,
It sure looks strange to me

[joobz]

Any signs of the flood would be in the top or upper most layers not back in prehistoric times.
And I don't think that all the water was from the ice as it speaks of the great deep breaking up and the fountains of the earth being involved.Where else would it come from?
If you believe it would be "poofed" into existence and then poofed out at the end of the flood, then game over. Any willingness to believe in magic here makes any attempts at finding evidence meaningless. Afterall, what's to stop you explaining that the evidence was Magiced away.

You either believe in a rational world, or you don't. evidence is the domain of the rational.

[edge]

Unrepentant Sinner yes I keep up and there are flaws in their interoperations that is why I looked else where.
If science is right about the layering ,not so sure about their dating techniques, then in my movies the top most upper layers should hold the evidence and in some places like the park movie, the evidence is still there and goes down to the depth that covers the last... oh, 15,000 years which covers the time period necessary to hold the evidence.
It coincides with my links about extinctions.

In those layers much erosion has happened and it is basically gone in most areas, but not here.

Most layering that you are talking about is sedimentary, here after twelve or so layers it becomes bedrock, so were the mountains here before 15,000 years ago or was this pushed up about that time since there are no layers in them.

What ever caused them there is only the layers I am looking at… and what is on top is evidence since there are no marine fossils here either, no shells, no marine fossils no bones of mammoths, no dinosaurs fossils, nothing, it is quit sterile ground here.

To quote Claus... "Evidence"?
Unfortunately for you, no, there are literally millions of places with evidence about the geological record of the Earth and none of them support there ever having been a global flood 4,000 years ago nor the Earth only being 6,000 years old.



Well for one thing As I have said the time line of the bible must be wrong or a misinterpatation and sciences as well.

So I stepped out side of the box to put this together.
Doesn’t mean that either doesn’t hold a great truth it means that neither is perfect for each or various reasons.

It/they are as truthful as can be, but neither is perfect and much is still yet to be known in either case.






After the Atlantic rift had found and established its path of rupture southward there remained, to the east, still a huge land-mass that needed to break open and adjust to the expanding and flattening surface of the sphere. So, another few tens of millions of years after the Atlantic had begun rifting, toward the end of the Jurassic, the upstart Indian Ocean tore into the remaining African/Eurasian/Austral-Asian super-continent along a line that on the present globe points due north. The initial rift followed more or less a straight line.
Our planet’s culmination in regard to basic expansion geometry is the Ninety-east Ridge, the straightest natural line on our planet. First formed was the Pacific circle. Then followed a curve in the North Atlantic that, going southward, has added a near right angle at the knee of South America. All together it seems as though the veering and twisting Atlantic rift has more or less tried to remain linear—reacting to the circum-Pacific stretching that was happening the width of a continent farther west. And finally there came the straight line itself that cut the Indian Ocean. It could only happen while north-south tension pulled initial synclines and while east-west tension was in step with Earth expansion to spread the rift. The Great African Rift, and the line of tension illustrated in Figure 11, both run parallel to the rift that has created the Indian Ocean.
The age of the straight ocean-rift along the eastern coast of Africa was left in doubt for some time. The makers of the UNESCO Indian Ocean map forgot to indicate the Jurassic portion in the Mozambique Channel. However, the missing information could easily be retrieved near the edge of their Atlantic map. Meanwhile this gap of information has been filled by the 1996 NOAA-map titled "Age of the Ocean Floor." The Jurassic rift that ran along East Africa is indicated there clearly—almost as if with a vengeance.
During the Lower Cretaceous the island of Madagascar was still close to Africa. Then during the Upper Cretaceous this large island and its plateau have slid southward. For many years this solution has been disputed by established Earth scientists as well as by some that argued for Earth expansion. But today there remains no longer a need for doubt. The scar along which Madagascar has slid southward is now clearly visible on the new "World Satellite Map" that shows the topography of the ocean floors in remarkable detail.[33]
http://www.triplehood.com/peex2.htm


Being that it is still active today it must have been in the past and what it did at any given time period is unknown but in the days of Noah it might have been the fountains finally erupted and the landmasses did what ever they did, such as rise and settle especially if the ice sheet receded quickly because we know what happens to land masses, they rise when glaciers recede.

The crack in the world goes all the way around pretty much the question is did waters spew fourth at a certain point/time and redistribute?





re are few times in Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic's history when there is just no rock record at all, nothing to tell us what was happening. One of these record gaps (unconformities) is after the Grenville event at 1.1 billion (Stage B) until the beginning of the Crossnore igneous activity at about 800 million (Stage C). The second gap is after the Alleghanian orogeny. From the last sediments deposited in southwest Virginia during the Pennsylvanian (Harlan formation) through the Permian, and until the late Triassic there is no geologic record in Virginia or the rest of the Mid-Atlantic to tell us what what going on. The best we can do is speculate based on conditions before and after, and reasoning from geologic principles and similar situations today.
We do know that Virginia lay deep within the supercontinent Pangaea, and that Virginia was firmly connected to northwest Africa. We are reasonably sure that during the Permian the last parts of the Alleghanian mountains were eroding because a few layers of sediment eroded from them remain in West Virginia and southwest Pennsylvania (called the Dunkard).
By the lower Triassic, though, Virginia had little or no geological activity, and little topographic relief. Likely though it was a high, broad, flat plateau since the great thickness of coal containing sediments that had accumulated on the western side of the Alleghanian mountains would have prevented erosion much below that level. On the other hand, rivers were either beginning or were actively incising deep canyons into the plateau. We base this on the deep erosion (last unconformity in the stratigraphic column) into the Pennsylvanian sediments found in southwest Virginia, although we have no way of knowing exactly when this erosion took place, except that it took place after the Harlan formation was deposited. The erosion cut deep, however, all the way down to the Bluestone formation, something over 2000 meters of section .
We also know from other evidence that most of North America to the west was land area, built up by rivers carrying the sediment eroded from the Allgehanian mountains into the Absaroka sea. Some of these long, east to west flowing river systems likely had their headwaters in Virginia, and flowed for thousands of miles before finally entering the ocean through southwest Texas and Mexico.

http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/L-TrJr.html


Well Joobz gods science might seem like magic even today, he didn't use mans magic.
So we can't prove his science either.

[joobz]

[quote=edge;3859691Well Joobz gods science might seem like magic even today, he didn't use mans magic.
So we can't prove his science either.[/quote]
And there we go.

You have a conclusion and are trying to find every single bit of data to support that conclusion. At the same time, you ignore counter information which disprove the likelihood of your claim.

That isn't science.
That isn't honest.
That isn't honorable.
It's dogma.

Why bother with all of this "evidence" if you are so willing to believe without it? If you are doing it to convince others, than you are failing. Poor research and logic won't work. If you are doing it to convince yourself, than you must have doubts. If you have doubts, but wish to keep your faith, then I suggest you start by abandoning a biblical literalist view. Otherwise, the evidence will not make you happy and force you to continue down the path of logical dissonance.

[edge]

Don't worry about my beliefs, what I think is this "there must be a bridge between science with gaps and God of gaps... and there is".

The bible and science points to, 12,000 years ago a major event occurred.

The time lines are both off.

One can prove the other.

There is evidence in a thousand ways that prove God and there is evidence in a thousand ways though that disproves God.

Then there is a line that proves it both ways with science and with out, that we can’t explain away like interaction in many ways that skeptics have lost awareness of, the interaction that believers see.
Interactions that have true results that can be explained in no other way, except that it is proof for God, for myths, for the archeology that was considered to be myth which now isn’t, for proof of life after death, by science of medicine, by the experience of the participants, who is thoroughly convinced of their own experience that they change their life or their beliefs and only for the better not the worst.
Angelic interventions witnessed by believers and non-believers who are left with a dilemma as to what to believe.
Every day my doubts are diminished and it is a long road, more is to be reveled in these times of great doubt, take it or leave it, but that is promised.

I never thought that I would be such a great witness to it.
My doubts are pretty much diminished to nothing you guys and gals come up with some good anti-biblical stuff, or should I say bad, but then I am placed in a spot that proves you wrong and then the answers come from out of nowhere, or so it seems, but myself I know where these answers are coming from, believe it or not there have been many times when I thought they wouldn’t, but now I let it happen in it’s time, when the answers are ready to revel themselves to me… and sometimes I think how can they? But they come from God so I am not so surprised anymore.
He leads me to them, without my having to look through tons of information, they magically appear, for the lack of a better term.
If you didn’t have doubts you wouldn’t read this so I believe you are looking for proof/smoking gun type, add it all up and you get a nuclear bomb.

[joobz]

Don't worry about my beliefs, what I think is this "there must be a bridge between science with gaps and God of gaps... and there is".
I agree there is. As science discovers more, the gaps shrink. that's the relationship.

The bible and science points to, 12,000 years ago a major event occurred.
Actually, the bible doesn't point to that at all. According to biblical literalists, the bible suggests a maximum earth age of 6000 years.
and the only science you presented suggests that a meteor strike occured in north america 12,000 years ago. This is a far, far, far different claim.

The time lines are both off.

One can prove the other.
You just said that they both suggest something occured 12,000 years ago, and now you say that they both have different time lines?



There is evidence in a thousand ways that prove God and there is evidence in a thousand ways though that disproves God.
No. There are 1000 excuses given to justify/invalidate god. No evidence for or against god "proves" anything. No one can prove/disprove god.

Then there is a line that proves it both ways with science and with out, that we can’t explain away like interaction in many ways that skeptics have lost awareness of, the interaction that believers see.
[quote=edge;3860000]Interactions that have true results that can be explained in no other way, except that it is proof for God, for myths, for the archeology that was considered to be myth which now isn’t, for proof of life after death, by science of medicine, by the experience of the participants, who is thoroughly convinced of their own experience that they change their life or their beliefs and only for the better not the worst.
Well, of course they do. It's called post hoc rationalization.
And if you have "true results" which prove god, then you again just contradicted your earlier statement. It is extremely difficult to hold a discussion when you change the rules by which you hold reality from one sentence to the next.

Angelic interventions witnessed by believers and non-believers who are left with a dilemma as to what to believe.
Every day my doubts are diminished and it is a long road, more is to be reveled in these times of great doubt, take it or leave it, but that is promised.

I never thought that I would be such a great witness to it.
My doubts are pretty much diminished to nothing you guys and gals come up with some good anti-biblical stuff, or should I say bad, but then I am placed in a spot that proves you wrong and then the answers come from out of nowhere, or so it seems, but myself I know where these answers are coming from, believe it or not there have been many times when I thought they wouldn’t, but now I let it happen in it’s time, when the answers are ready to revel themselves to me… and sometimes I think how can they? But they come from God so I am not so surprised anymore.
I am happy that you have a faith that enriches your life and makes you happy. Unfortunately, that faith has no actual effect upon my or other's objective reality. I apologize that you believe you've made posts that "proves me wrong", but that is simply not the objective case.

He leads me to them, without my having to look through tons of information, they magically appear, for the lack of a better term.
This explains much of your posts. Edge, I like you , but you make disjointed, self-contradictory, barely coherent arguments.

If you didn’t have doubts you wouldn’t read this so I believe you are looking for proof/smoking gun type, add it all up and you get a nuclear bomb.
Again, your beliefs do not do anything to effect my reality. I post and respond to you, because I enjoy making scientific arguments. I enjoy debating and learning more. I respond to you in hopes that you will learn from what I can say.

[Stir]

OK, let's do a little arithmetic: first assume that the flood covered everything up to 1000 feet (note that this would leave lots and lots of land uncovered) with rain in '40 days and 40 nights' -- that means 25 feet of rain per day, more than 2 inches per hour without stop ... anyone believe that's possible?

[Freethinker]

that means 25 feet of rain per day, more than 2 inches per hour without stop ... anyone believe that's possible?

I have an easier time believing that than believing the ark had a mechanism for dealing with that much water in the bilge. The bible doesn't mention Noah building any huge diesel pumps.

[joobz]

Edge has already made it clear that he is willing to use the "God Did it" explanation. Any discussion on the logic of the story is useless.

For instance, I asked above.
"If a comet explosion 12,000 melted all the ice caps, resulting in the flood, than why do ice core samples have age dates (by multiple techniques) of >150,000 years?"

The answer is, "god did it".
You can't fight that answer with logic, evidence or reason.

[Elizabeth I]

I agree. It seems rather ethnocentric to think that evidence of a north american event equals worldwide.

AND how would knowledge of something that happened in North America get to the Middle East to be recorded in the Bible?

The latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer has a really good article about the futility and uselessness of attempting to find scientific explanations for things that probably never happened at all. The flood was one of the things mentioned in that article.

[I Ratant]

Watching edge and PJ invoke science and history in their attempts to shoehorn both into that book of fables would be amusing, were it not so pathetic, in demonstrating the "beam" in their eyes that prevents a clearer vision of reality.

[GreNME]

The bible and science points to, 12,000 years ago a major event occurred.

No they don't. In fact, neither do. For the former that kind of number is the claim of certain schools of fundamentalism, and for the latter there is no unifying record of a "major event" in any way different than events that happen today, barring continental drift and normal climate cycles.

If you want to use "science" for pointing to "major events" occurring, you're going to have to go further back than that.

[The Gnomon]

AND how would knowledge of something that happened in North America get to the Middle East to be recorded in the Bible?



It's simple, really. It has to do with the well-known phenomenen of reverse generational information transmission, in which information is passed backwards into the past. Since the native Americans were descendents of the lost tribes of Israel, their information, obtained from their archeological research, passed backwards to the ancient Hebrews. QED.

[GreyICE]

Comet impacts don't trigger worldwide floods. They trigger worldwide extinctions.

10,000 Tungustas is a little absurd. Tungusta was a 5-30 megaton event, so we're talking 10,000 Castle Bravos, 10 million Hiroshimas here. I think we might have a small problem if that happened.

[I Ratant]

Comet impacts don't trigger worldwide floods. They trigger worldwide extinctions.

10,000 Tungustas is a little absurd. Tungusta was a 5-30 megaton event, so we're talking 10,000 Castle Bravos, 10 million Hiroshimas here. I think we might have a small problem if that happened.
.
"we" wouldn't.
If anything survived at all, it's certain that it would evolve along much different lines than what we've seen, as Nature seems reluctant to do the same thing twice.
The co-joining of Twinkies and cockroaches... I wonder where that would lead?

[edge]

Every day my doubts are diminished and it is a long road, more is to be reveled in these times of great doubt, take it or leave it, but that is promised.


16"No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. 17For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. 18Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him."


You just said that they both suggest something occurred 12,000 years ago, and now you say that they both have different time lines?



Well lets see scientist can’t agree on a specific date for the end of the last ice age, not exactly, some say 8,000 years ago some say 12,000 years ago some say 15,000 years ago.
Most agree to the 12,000-year number and for numerous reasons that number comes up more times with more backing.



If you follow the genealogical time-line of the Bible you get around 6000 years ago but other studies indicate that they skipped generations for various reasons, which should make it longer.
Another factor is they had oral traditions long before they wrote it down.
It’s funny how the skeptics are the ones that are standing firm on this number especially when science says differently.




Jewish law required that genealogies were to be through the line of the males, and not the females...

Num 1:17-18, "So Moses and Aaron took these men who had been designated, and assembled the whole community on the first day of the second month. Every man of twenty years or more then declared his name and lineage according to clan and ancestral house."


Tamar was Jesus' 41st great grandmother according to Matthew's genealogy. According to Luke she was his 50th great grandmother. Hebrew law dictated that when a man died his brother was bound to marry the widow. That insured that the deceased man's line would be continued.


Bathsheba was the wife of one of David's generals, "Uriah the Hittite." She could have been Hittite herself, but there is nothing in the Bible to confirm that. David lusted after Bathsheba and contrived to have Uriah killed so that he could marry her. She was the mother of Solomon who became the king of Israel after David died. You can read the complete story beginning with 2 Samuel 11. Bathsheba was was Jesus' 29th great grandmother according to Matthew's genealogy. According to Luke she was his 38th great grandmother.

· Abraham's wife, Sarah, was also his half sister. (Genesis 20:12)
· Samuel, like Jesus, has two genealogies in the Bible. If you go to 1 Chronicles 6:33-38 you will see a clear genealogy that makes Samuel a descendant of Levi. It goes like this ".Elkanah, son of Jeroham, son of Eliel, son of Toah, son of Zuph, son of Elkanah, son of Mahath, son of Amasai, son of Elkanah, son of Joel, son of Azariah, son of Zephaniah, son of Tahath, son of Assir, son of Ebiasaph, son of Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, son of Israel".

However, if you read 1 Samuel 1:1 you find these words "Elkanah son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. That clearly makes Samuel a descendant of Ephraim and Ephraim is one of Joseph's sons. Since Joseph and Levi were brothers this makes for an interesting puzzle. I leave it to people who are smarter than I to solve it. Two of my sources outside the Bible put Samuel in Joseph's line and two of them put him in Levi's line.
· Zephaniah, the prophet, was possibly the 2nd great grandson of King Hezekiah. That makes him a 3rd cousin of Jesus, 23 times removed. Noteworthy in the genealogy of the prophet is the name "Cushi." This name usually means "the Ethiopian" and refers to a black person from Africa. (Genesis to Revelation Teacher Book, Volume 2, Abingdon Press, Nashville, Tennessee,1997)


You just can’t use this as an indicator of when the early beginnings were or at exactly what date humans first appear.

If you take the 12,000-year event as a marker, it then makes more sense.

If the tradition was started in Moses’ time then from there to Adam may be wrong.

Or the deposits that I have found are younger and the event was a separate event that happened between 6000 and 3,000 years ago.


But then here’s a better picture of an animal that was in Russia…. and if this is what men witnessed as a unicorn it makes you wonder.
They lived from the Pliocene epoch from 4.8 million years ago to around 4,500 years ago.[1] [2] The word mammoth comes from the Russian мамонт mamont, probably in turn from the Vogul (Mansi) language.[3]

The woolly mammoth was the last species of the genus. Most populations of the woolly mammoth in North America and Eurasia died out at the end of the last Ice Age. Until recently, it was generally assumed that the last woolly mammoths vanished from Europe and Southern Siberia about 10,000 BC, but new findings show that some were still present here about 8,000 BC. Only slightly later, the woolly mammoths also disappeared from continental Northern Siberia.[4] Woolly mammoths as well as Columbian mammoths disappeared from the North American continent at the end of the ice age. A small population survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 6000 BC,[2] and the small mammoths of Wrangel Island became extinct only around 2000 BC.[5]

A definitive explanation for their mass extinction is yet to be agreed upon. About 12,000 years ago, warmer, wetter weather was beginning to take hold. Rising sea levels swamped the coastal regions. Forests replaced open woodlands and grasslands across the continent. The Ice Age was ebbing. As their habitats disappeared, so did the bison and the mammoth.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium

[kedo1981]

Let’s end this waste of time with this

It’s pretty obvious that the whole world wide flood story is no more than a childish fairy tale.
No one with any brains would take it as being the literal truth.

Even die hard “the bible is the literal word of God” believers have to do countless scripture re-writes to have the “flood myth” make sense.

The Chinese and Egyptians were all around at time, that’s the nail in the coffin.

Who would like to put money the whole “all cultures have a flood story” as being a transplanted legend propagated by missionaries?

[edge]

A comet striking the Earth may not break up as much as this one did in the link I posted below, but if it did break up into several pieces then it could cover most of the ice sheet.
Why it didn’t melt all of it is still a mystery, but I would say that most of it might have come from under the crust of the earth from the great crack that circles the world, from the fountains of the earth.
In two weeks they’ll come up with a new discovery, as the track record indicates so far, as I have been writing about this, we’ll see.



http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980728.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950713.html


The Chinese have the flood myth too.
This is their symbol for the myth.

[edge]

Who would like to put money the whole “all cultures have a flood story” as being a transplanted legend propagated by missionaries?

Proof?
Like this is a whale?????

[joobz]

The Chinese have the flood myth too.
This is their symbol for the myth.
Of course most people have flood myths. Flooding is a real natural disaster which impacts multiple areas.

Just like Valcano eruptions are real natural disasters and therefore have myths about them as well.

[joobz]

Well lets see scientist can’t agree on a specific date for the end of the last ice age, not exactly, some say 8,000 years ago some say 12,000 years ago some say 15,000 years ago.
Most agree to the 12,000-year number and for numerous reasons that number comes up more times with more backing.

If you follow the genealogical time-line of the Bible you get around 6000 years ago but other studies indicate that they skipped generations for various reasons, which should make it longer.
Another factor is they had oral traditions long before they wrote it down.
It’s funny how the skeptics are the ones that are standing firm on this number especially when science says differently.





You just can’t use this as an indicator of when the early beginnings were or at exactly what date humans first appear.

If you take the 12,000-year event as a marker, it then makes more sense.

If the tradition was started in Moses’ time then from there to Adam may be wrong.

Or the deposits that I have found are younger and the event was a separate event that happened between 6000 and 3,000 years ago.
So, if we don't take a literalist view of the bible, you can pigeon hole any date you want into it's story. that's not very suprising.

Here's another one:
We have evidence of floods occuring in the middle east going back centuries. These floods when severe enough, would look like the entire world was convered in water. One of these floods is the origin of the flood myth and NOT an actual world wide flood.

[edge]

According to the Bible, Noah’s Flood was both universal and catastrophic, resulting in the wholesale destruction of both human and animal life on the earth. But is it possible that it really happened? Can we find evidence?
In considering this question, let’s begin with the Bible itself and briefly review the account of the Flood: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened” (Genesis 7:11). Notice this important fact: The source of the water was
both the atmosphere (“windows of heaven”) and subterranean water (“fountains of the great deep”).
The Genesis account, then, indicates that much of the water came from inside the earth. Even today large underground reservoirs of water and a surprising number of underground streams exist throughout the earth. But in the pre-Flood world these were likely even more common.
What is meant by the terminology, “the fountains of the great deep were broken up” ?; The Bible Knowledge Commentary states regarding Genesis 7:11: “. . . There were corresponding gigantic upheavals and shiftings of the earth’s crust which caused the oceans’ floors to rise and break up their reservoirs of subterranean waters.”
This comment about the “fountains of the deep” being broken up indicates that there were tremendous movements of land—possibly even continents—likely causing massive volcanic eruptions, too.
The geologic history of the earth shows periods in which tremendous upheaval has occurred. The “fountains of the deep” being opened probably included the sudden releasing of this underground water accompanied by erupting volcanoes—causing at least some new geologic strata to be formed on the earth.


http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn046/noahsflood.htm

In light of such obvious evidence, why don’t modern geologists and scientists readily accept the validity of the Flood? One reason is that these relatively recent formations are dated by geologists as occurring (in most cases) millions of years before the biblical Flood. The theory of evolution has had such a strong influence on the thinking of the intelligentsia of this world that the truths of the Bible have largely been forgotten or dismissed.


He's going to go into what has been brought up before but the first point is relevant, the cause had to be something great.

[edge]

Well, we will see what new things they find out about this period. :)

[GreNME]

Well lets see scientist can’t agree on a specific date for the end of the last ice age, not exactly, some say 8,000 years ago some say 12,000 years ago some say 15,000 years ago.
Most agree to the 12,000-year number and for numerous reasons that number comes up more times with more backing.

You're lying. Please don't state outright lies as if they are factual talking points. It is insulting to both those you argue against and those you argue in favor of.

There exists no point in time where the Ice Age can be considered fully stopped and the newer climate begun. The reason no such number exists, and why the range of years is in the thousands is because there is no line of demarcation with such changes. So your attempt to use a number as a line of demarcation is not in line with scientific methodology and is instead employing pseudoscientific phrases in place of actual scientific discovery.

If you follow the genealogical time-line of the Bible you get around 6000 years ago but other studies indicate that they skipped generations for various reasons, which should make it longer.
Another factor is they had oral traditions long before they wrote it down.
It’s funny how the skeptics are the ones that are standing firm on this number especially when science says differently.

Which "science" are you talking about? Archaeology? Anthropology? Historical record? I'm more than happy to discuss any one of those with you to show you how your claims of what "science says" are pure bunk. However, what you seem to actually be doing here is taking Christian apologetics and re-writing Jewish history, which I find to not only be intellectually dishonest but remarkably dismissive of anything resembling scientific method in the first place.

You just can’t use this as an indicator of when the early beginnings were or at exactly what date humans first appear.

If you take the 12,000-year event as a marker, it then makes more sense.

If the tradition was started in Moses’ time then from there to Adam may be wrong.

Or the deposits that I have found are younger and the event was a separate event that happened between 6000 and 3,000 years ago.

That isn't an either-or scenario. Both assumptions could be (and are) incorrect. There's no sense about what you're saying.

[joobz]

In light of such obvious evidence, ...
What you quoted wasn't evidence. it was a story.

It would be like me quoting Harry Potter and saying, "Why don't people recognize the danger voldemort was?"


And let's look at the quote you mentioned. It highlighted Noah's age of 600 years.

So, not only do you need to find evidence that the whole world was flooded with water, you must also prove that it is possible for people to live >600 years.

[GreNME]

And let's look at the quote you mentioned. It highlighted Noah's age of 600 years.

So, not only do you need to find evidence that the whole world was flooded with water, you must also prove that it is possible for people to live >600 years.

This is important to note in these discussion, especially with the fallacious claims of 6000 to 12000 years as a time frame. It is not scientific theories that claim biblical history goes back 6000 years, because based on the names and lineages listed in the bible it wouldn't be possible to go back further than 3500 to 4000 years (tops) when considering normal life spans instead of these incredibly long lives as depicted of some biblical characters. Since no archaeological or anthropological evidence exists to show people living in excess of 80 years under the best of circumstances between 10000 and 1000 BCE (and before), the onus is upon those who claim validity of the stories about people who supposedly lived during these times to provide evidence of the existence of such characters to begin with.

And not to be pithy, but there is more evidence of an historical Gilgamesh than an historical Noah.

[kedo1981]

They are dismissed because they are lies believed only by idiots

[fuelair]

12k years ago is about 6k years before the culture that began this myth.But, most of the ones we hear about lived 1000 or more years - just 6 generations to pass the old stories down.

[wollery]

Oh, for FSM's sake! Now you're counting cultures as generations??? :nope:

[bokonon]

World-wide flood proof?

We're going to need more sandbags...

[fuelair]

Oh, for FSM's sake! Now you're counting cultures as generations??? :nope:No - the Hebrew old timers (Abraham and all). It's a bibble thing.

[fuelair]

Like in the post at the top of the page here!!

[wollery]

No - the Hebrew old timers (Abraham and all). It's a bibble thing.Ah, I see what you mean.

In which case, your statement;

But, most of the ones we hear about lived 1000 or more yearsIs complete Jackson Pollocks, since the longest lifespan in the bible is 969 years, credited to Methuselah. So, no, nobody lived "1000 or more years", even in the bible stories.

[GreNME]

Like in the post at the top of the page here!!

What are you talking about? Do you mean this:But, most of the ones we hear about lived 1000 or more years - just 6 generations to pass the old stories down.

If so, that's equally unbelievable since a generation is roughly 15-17 years by average definitions (slightly more if you want to talk modern social trends). It's highly unlikely people were living to 100 years of age 5000+ years ago.

[edge]

Wow I sense some anger?

Well it is a marker believe it or not.

You also have this although a different time period.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-07/fingerprints.html


http://www.gonzoscience.com/GonzoUSA/?p=102




The carcass of a woolly mammoth, kept out of rot's way for 20,000 years in the frozen ground of northern Siberia, will be excavated this autumn. The Jarkov mammoth, named for the family that discovered it, will be the first mammoth ever to be kept frozen as it's lifted out of its grave. It will be stored in an underground cave at minus twelve degrees centigrade.
Raising the Mammoth
They are thinking of cloning this one.
http://www.zetatalk.com/info/tinfo26l.htm

Possibly from the now known meteor/asteroid strike that left shrapnel in the tusks of North American specimens that were found.

So we have two different events about 8,000 years apart from each other?

Then we have another event in Tunguska about what 100 years ago or so, but on a much smaller scale?
So we know that these objects can be devastating.


Hancock hypothesizes that the demise of the mammoths and other megafauna was caused by a catastrophic cataclysm brought on through an Earth Crustal Displacement. The result was that "terrible forces were unleashed on all living creatures during the last Ice Age" and that "the northern regions of Alaska and Siberia appear to have been the worst hit by the murderous upheavals between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago. In a great swathe of death around the edge of the Arctic Circle the remains of uncountable numbers of large animals have been found-including many carcasses with the flesh still intact, and astonishing quantities of perfectly preserved mammoth tusks" (Hancock 1995, 212, 213). Hancock makes a case for Siberia having experienced a warm climate before 11,000 B.P. and contrasts it with the conditions seen there today. As evi-dence, Hancock focuses on stomach contents: "The mammoth died suddenly, in intense cold, and in great numbers. Death comes so quickly that the swallowed vegetation is yet undigested. . . . Grasses, bluebells, buttercups, tender sedges, and wild beans have been found, yet identifiable and undeteriorated, in their mouths and stomachs" (Hancock 1995, 215-16). The source for the quote by Hancock is a 1960 newspaper article by Ivan Sanderson. Hancock (1995, 216) also claims: "Needless to say, such flora does not grow anywhere in Siberia today. Its presence there in the eleventh millennium b.c. compels us to accept that the region had a pleasant and productive climate-one that was temperate or even warm. . . . What is certain, however, is that at some point between 12-13,000 years ago a destroying frost descended with horrifying speed upon Siberia and has never relaxed its grip. In an eerie echo of the Avestic traditions, a land which had previously enjoyed seven months of summer was converted almost overnight into a land of ice and snow with ten months of harsh and frozen winter."




http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-07/fingerprints.html

These two events may be one and the same since the dating techniques cannot be perfect with a leeway of some thousands of years.

End of ice age between, 8,000 to 15,000 –thousand- years, this is what I get from all the sources, 7,0000- years leeway.


I know blasphemy.
How dare I!

[joobz]

I know blasphemy.
How dare I!
you're all over the place again.
How does a 30,000 year old carcass prove an event 10-15,000 years ago?

What you are doing isn't blasphemy. It's simply poor reasoning.

[GreNME]

Wow I sense some anger?

Well it is a marker believe it or not.

Why do people who are trying to play apologetics games always resort to emotional arguments?

These two events may be one and the same since the dating techniques cannot be perfect with a leeway of some thousands of years.

End of ice age between, 8,000 to 15,000 –thousand- years, this is what I get from all the sources, 7,0000- years leeway.

That's not leeway, that's a gradient. As I already said, there was no line of demarcation for the end of the Ice Age. Your sources should agree with that.

[ponderingturtle]

The problem is that most of the cultures in North America, where you claim this blast to have occurred, continued to thrive. How do you address this issue?


Well you see Noah's great great grandkids who settled the america's where archeologists and decided to recreate the culture that had existed before god justly destroyed the earth.

It is obvious really.

[ponderingturtle]

.
"we" wouldn't.
If anything survived at all, it's certain that it would evolve along much different lines than what we've seen, as Nature seems reluctant to do the same thing twice.
The co-joining of Twinkies and cockroaches... I wonder where that would lead?

How much larger would that be than the Santorini blast though?

[I Ratant]

How much larger would that be than the Santorini blast though?
.
Given the state of unrest in the Middle East today, and the presence of nukes, the Twinkie/cockroach merging may not be that far in the future.
.
Santorini may have figured in the myth of the splitting of the Red Sea.. just a slight shift in geography, and inflating of the effects of the tsunami, but I don't think it's given the overall effect of those blasts that created the various "traps" around the world.
The coming (if true) venting underneath Yellowstone might be a biggie.

[kedo1981]

a roach with creamy center:)

[I Ratant]

Seeing as the events in Genesis 1 and 2 were absent from the Torah that "Moses" wrote, being added about 450 or so BCE, during the time of the Hebrews captivity in Babylon, pinning one's belief in those particular stories shows not only an ignorance of science, but history as well.

[kedo1981]

There are alot of postings about the Ice age ending between 8,000 and 15,000 years ago.
This makes it sound like the poster has some silly concept of the Ice age ending on a July afternoon and suddenly the Ice is gone; by ending, what is meant, is the ice stops advancing, then over what would be thousands of years, retreats.

[billydkid]

Is there enough water on and around the earth to flood the entire earth?

[Beerina]

Oh, I get it. You're talking about that old myth about a worldwide flood that was caused by some supernatural being making it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, and you're trying to demonstrate by way of evidence that it's not a true story. Okay. But most of us were already pretty sure of that anyway. :)

I keep saying this. It wasn't just rain that happened. The cosmology of that period is well-established. Earth was a flat, hollow pocket topped by a hard shell, or "vault", said pocked holding back the waters both above and below.

When God decided to flood the Earth, he opened some windows above, and "broke up the fonts below", i.e. busted up the natural rock formations that were limiting the underground streams and water in wells from just rising upward rapidly.

This is actually in the Bible. Windows above is how water "gets up there" to fall. Windows below is how water "gets down there" to flood up from underground streams and wells.


We do know now, though, that the Earth isn't a flat land in a protected pocket hollowed out in a vast 3D space of water (which presumably has a top somewhere as the Spirit of God moved over it in Genesis.) And therefore the Bible is in error, and therefore cannot be the inspired Word of God. And therefore there need not bee any evidence of a worldwide flood since there is no (theological) reason for there to have been one.

[MG1962]

We do know now, though, that the Earth isn't a flat land in a protected pocket hollowed out in a vast 3D space of water (which presumably has a top somewhere as the Spirit of God moved over it in Genesis.) And therefore the Bible is in error, and therefore cannot be the inspired Word of God. And therefore there need not bee any evidence of a worldwide flood since there is no (theological) reason for there to have been one.

How so? It is the inspired word of God, not a transcript of what he said

[GreNME]

Seeing as the events in Genesis 1 and 2 were absent from the Torah that "Moses" wrote, being added about 450 or so BCE, during the time of the Hebrews captivity in Babylon, pinning one's belief in those particular stories shows not only an ignorance of science, but history as well.

Well, to be fair, we really don't have a surviving copy of the "Torah that Moses wrote" because, well, we don't have any copies of any Torah older than about 600 BCE (nevermind the questionable historicity of a biblical Moshe). :)

----

There are alot of postings about the Ice age ending between 8,000 and 15,000 years ago.
This makes it sound like the poster has some silly concept of the Ice age ending on a July afternoon and suddenly the Ice is gone; by ending, what is meant, is the ice stops advancing, then over what would be thousands of years, retreats.

Except that isn't how things happened either. Trying to explain anything as huge as the (relatively) quick climate changes coming out of the Ice Age as happening on a global scale all at once is a ridiculous concept. Glacial flow didn't stop moving southward in any uniform manner, and in certain parts of certain hemispheres it happened quicker than others.

But that isn't even the beginning of the flaws in what's being claimed. The reality is that there is no overarching event that happened at any particular time (or even several within a significantly close time frame) that can be considered a reasonable equivalent to a worldwide deluge. It is a physical impossibility due to several factors, not the least of which being there isn't nearly enough water in the first place (nor mass extinctions of human cultures). The whole Ice Age argument being made is a red herring, because none of it actually supports the biblical narrative and there's no actual evidence of a mass extinction of humans (and everything else) like that in any archaeological records anyway.

----

Is there enough water on and around the earth to flood the entire earth?

Of course not. Not even close. :)

[edge]

Yes there is if you push all the dirt and rock into the seas you would then have something like a mile of water over head.

That's with what we have now.

After millions of years of a glacial ice sheets on both top and bottom of the world there was a sudden end to the ice age.

That's not leeway, that's a gradient. As I already said, there was no line of demarcation for the end of the Ice Age. Your sources should agree with that.


My sources say differently, do you read any of the links as these old theories are being revised?

There are a lot of postings about the Ice age ending between 8,000 and 15,000 years ago.
This makes it sound like the poster has some silly concept of the Ice age ending on a July afternoon and suddenly the Ice is gone; by ending, what is meant, is the ice stops advancing, then over what would be thousands of years, retreats.

No I guess you don’t.

My point is that scientists can’t agree on a single date, how can they say one thing and then another?

That proves that time-line dating isn’t as accurate as they think.
The other factor is that the Hebrew genealogical record is incomplete or other factors of it don’t cover all of the time that man was around.
If indeed it was a comet that changed things then it was rapid, maybe in a couple of days, if something slammed into the earth all kinds of things may have happened at once.

Shift in the tilt, melting of ice, crack in the plates all around the world releasing great amounts of water, great continental up lift and shifting of continents, continental drift, collapse of oceanic basins.


The videos of the sand deposits, well since there is bedrock with only 7 or so layers on top of bedrock then this is the only evidence that dates back to those times here…and it is on top.
If I am wrong, then the evidence might be younger… and a separate event.
Then we are back to the 3,000 4,000-year that is popular for the event as described or accepted or rejected by many..


The mud waves under the artic ocean, under the ice cap another good set of evidence that major currents in the recent past had to have caused those.

Another factor is the earth is growing or swelling.


This is actually in the Bible. Windows above is how water "gets up there" to fall. Windows below is how water "gets down there" to flood up from underground streams and wells.


Isaiah 41:17,18
17When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst, I the LORD will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them.


18I will open rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys: I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water.

Genisis 7:11
11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

There isn’t anything said about windows below, stop it.

Then there are the evidences for the reason why and their traces, another thing that the bible mentions the cause of our dilemma, multiple evidence, the Hebrews specifically said the ruins below belonged to one of these… and a king no less.

All we are going to do here is agree to disagree, I'll post when something new comes up.

[Civilized Worm]

All we are going to do here is agree to disagree, I'll post when something new comes up.


I'm not going to agree to that!

[joobz]

Edge, there is not a single coherent thought in what you just posted. It is completely impossible to follow.

Yes there is if you push all the dirt and rock into the seas you would then have something like a mile of water over head.
Push all the dirt into the seas??? All what dirt?
What sease?
A mile over head what?

What are you talking about?????

After millions of years of a glacial ice sheets on both top and bottom of the world there was a sudden end to the ice age.
Top and bottom of the world? !??!? Do you mean to say north and south or are you saying that there are ice sheets at the bottom of the ocean?



My point is that scientists can’t agree on a single date, how can they say one thing and then another?

That proves that time-line dating isn’t as accurate as they think.
Isn't as accurate as who thinks? Where do you see scientists claiming an exact date which doesn't have a confidence invterval built into it?

The other factor is that the Hebrew genealogical record is incomplete or other factors of it don’t cover all of the time that man was around.So this means that the bible is incomplete and inaccurate. Why are you bothering to prove a story from an inaccurate/incomplete text?


If indeed it was a comet that changed things then it was rapid, maybe in a couple of days, if something slammed into the earth all kinds of things may have happened at once.

Shift in the tilt, melting of ice, crack in the plates all around the world releasing great amounts of water, great continental up lift and shifting of continents, continental drift, collapse of oceanic basins.
what! A crack in what plate that released water????

The videos of the sand deposits, well since there is bedrock with only 7 or so layers on top of bedrock then this is the only evidence that dates back to those times here…and it is on top.
If I am wrong, then the evidence might be younger… and a separate event.?!?????



There isn’t anything said about windows below, stop it.

Then there are the evidences for the reason why and their traces, another thing that the bible mentions the cause of our dilemma, multiple evidence, the Hebrews specifically said the ruins below belonged to one of these… and a king no less.
what evidences?
what reason?
what "traces"??
the bible mentions these non-specific things?
what dilemma?
now multiple evidences?
Ruins below what?
they Belonged to these?

NOTHING in that paragraph is comprehensible.

All we are going to do here is agree to disagree, I'll post when something new comes up.
I can't even do that. To agree or disagree would imply that there was a thought expressed that one could rationally interpret and form an opnion on.

I could no more agree/disagree with this post than I could agree/disagree with a bag of marbles.

[Jimbo07]

Does that last image say Big Foot in the caption?

[Silentknight]

Oh boy, can you sense the war brewing between the creationists and the cryptozoologists over whose fairy tale the big footprint proves? The next thing you know, they'll be arguing over whether or not Nessie is the leviathan mentioned in the book of Job. Maybe we can provoke New Age healers into the mix and get rid of three bats--I mean birds (sorry, was thinking of the book of Genesis) with one stone.


On a related topic, it's interesting to note that according to the bible, the Earth was completely covered in water at a time prior to the Noahic flood. This time would be around the time of the six day creation period when Elohim divided the lower waters from the higher waters. In fact, it's not until verse 9 that Elohim designates some space for dry ground. Keep in mind that many creation myths start out this way, where the Earth was all water and the creator deity makes lands by mounding up the mud that was underneath.

[GreNME]

Yes there is if you push all the dirt and rock into the seas you would then have something like a mile of water over head.

That's with what we have now.

After millions of years of a glacial ice sheets on both top and bottom of the world there was a sudden end to the ice age.

Um, no, you're making things up out of thin air (or thin apologetics). There is not enough water on the planet to cover it completely, even counting to polar ice.

That's not leeway, that's a gradient. As I already said, there was no line of demarcation for the end of the Ice Age. Your sources should agree with that.My sources say differently, do you read any of the links as these old theories are being revised?

Your sources? Your sources so far have been from apologetics groups or have been misquoting valid information.

No I guess you don’t.

My point is that scientists can’t agree on a single date, how can they say one thing and then another?

Welcome to science, where all of your questions aren't answered in a pretty leather-bound book with magic and miracles. You see, the Ice Age didn't actually begin ending 15000-10000 years ago, it began warming around 60000 years ago until about 25000 years ago, then cooled again for about 10000 years, at which point warming began again.

All we are going to do here is agree to disagree, I'll post when something new comes up.

I'll agree that your hypotheses are based on faith and not evidence. You still have failed to provide any evidence of mass extinctions of humans (or animals) within any time period that could correspond with a biblical deluge. So, instead of continuing the constant red herring of faulty interpretation-by-apologetics why not focus on providing proof that some deity decided to kill off every man, woman, child, and animal on the planet except for on an ark?

[MG1962]

On a related topic, it's interesting to note that according to the bible, the Earth was completely covered in water at a time prior to the Noahic flood. This time would be around the time of the six day creation period when Elohim divided the lower waters from the higher waters. In fact, it's not until verse 9 that Elohim designates some space for dry ground. Keep in mind that many creation myths start out this way, where the Earth was all water and the creator deity makes lands by mounding up the mud that was underneath.

Is it worthy of note that according to David Levy, the Earth was subjected to two distinct periods of cometry bombardment. The intitial bombardment created oceans that were stripped away during the collision that created the Moon, the second bombardment brought about the oceans we know today

[edge]

We have Neanderthals and a giant, that’s what I am talking about, damn joobz I thought you would have figured that out. Since we have talked about all this before.


So there's skeletal remains of something that looks like us acts likes us but isn't us, Neanderthals?
Thumb bones of giants and leg bones and skeletal remains reported from the U.S.A. in earlier history and even recorded and maybe hidden by the Smithsonian.
We now have Bigfoot sightings also, true or not?


Let me make it simpler if you could put all the dirt of the world into the deepest parts of the oceans there would be enough water to cover the planet.

Could water have covered, what ever the ground was in the past?
Who were these people?

[joobz]

We have Neanderthals and a giant, that’s what I am talking about, damn joobz I thought you would have figured that out. Since we have talked about all this before.I haven't followed your arguments from the beginning.
What does the existence of other human primates prove for you?




Let me make it simpler if you could put all the dirt of the world into the deepest parts of the oceans there would be enough water to cover the planet.
I don't know, nor do I know how that helps you.

Are you claiming that the world went flat (lost all mountains, hills, ...) prior to the flood? That all of the continents went into the depths?




Who were these people?
I seriously have no clue what your point is.

[GreNME]

We have Neanderthals and a giant, that’s what I am talking about, damn joobz I thought you would have figured that out. Since we have talked about all this before.

There is zero evidence of any giant homo species larger than gigantopithecus, and you have provided none.

So there's skeletal remains of something that looks like us acts likes us but isn't us, Neanderthals?
Thumb bones of giants and leg bones and skeletal remains reported from the U.S.A. in earlier history and even recorded and maybe hidden by the Smithsonian.
We now have Bigfoot sightings also, true or not?

Sounds like this baloney belongs in General Skepticism or in the Conspiracy Theories sections, not the R&P.

Let me make it simpler if you could put all the dirt of the world into the deepest parts of the oceans there would be enough water to cover the planet.

That is a false assertion, and as I found looking into the possible source for such an assertion it's a circular one-- everyone seems to refer back to a book by Alfred R. Wallace published in 1903 as their definitive "proof" of this assertion (despite the irony that Wallace apparently defended evolutionary theory). Even further, the assertion itself is ridiculous in its fiction because the Earth's crust has never been completely flat anyway.

Could water have covered, what ever the ground was in the past?

No.

Who were these people?

Figments of fundamentalist imagination.

[zenotter]

Um, Noah evolved from the Neanderthal branch of the homo noonoonious tree that was planted in da gadda da vida. Get it straight. And reunite Gondwanaland while you're at it. :rolleyes:

[Complexity]

No world-wide flood, hence no valid proof of a world-wide flood.

Another inane thread about woo, wasting bits that should have been spent on porn.

[Madalch]

Let me make it simpler if you could put all the dirt of the world into the deepest parts of the oceans there would be enough water to cover the planet.
Could water have covered, what ever the ground was in the past?
Treating the Earth as a perfect sphere of radius 6,371 km, and a hydrosphere containing 1.3 billion cubic km of water (numbers from wikipedia), I get a depth of 2.5 km.

However, you would have to assume that all the mountians and all the ocean trenches flattened themselves out for the deluge to happen (and then, a year later, grew back). This does not match the geological record.

[zenotter]

Hey... where did Noah keep the tapeworms? And liver flukes? And who got to carry the chlamydia? The humans or the koalas? And how did the koalas traipse across the continents to Aussieland anyway??

[Madalch]

And who got to carry the chlamydia? The humans or the koalas?

Noah must have really been lonely if he got chlamydia from some koalas.

[I Ratant]

And considering all the genetic diseases his progeny (us) have, his family had to be physical wrecks from the git-go.
How they managed to construct that impossible boat, AND collect all those animals is really a miracle, considering how lame and halt all of them had to be.

[Madalch]

And considering all the genetic diseases his progeny (us) have, his family had to be physical wrecks from the git-go.
Not really- genetic diseases could have been the result of all the inbreeding that happened when Noah's grandkids had nobody to marry apart from their own cousins.

Diseases caused by germs, onthe other hand, all had to be there (unless there was only one germ "kind" which super-evolved since the flood).

[edge]

For the eco-system of the planet these bacteria and germs have a role in the matter universe, otherwise we would have billions of the dead.
It is as it was in Noah’s' day.

A comet strike is the best explanation.
Evidence is there, if it was global that part of it may have ebbed and then receded to a point of containment and tidal flows, tsunamis and by the time it got past the equator it wasn't as devastating.
It would explain happy feet and the penguins let alone Australia.
I would have to say that during this event that God eased up a bit.
After all he was remorseful in having to do so.
Genetic failure started before Noah’s time, genetic manipulation is what’s recorded.



Lets see if you can put 2+2 together.
Reconstruction is in the eye of the beholder.
Just exactly who were these others?
We were both around at the same time?
Imagine that group, in the picture, with less hair and slightly more sophisticated.
Is it possible that both of these were around when man was around?
Ugly degenerations and great and renowned men, two ends of the spectrum of selective breeding?
I see what evolution may have produced and what God produced.
We must have more in common with Neanderthals than with chimps, as far as genes.


LiveScience.com :
Neanderthal reconstruction with color coding for specimen identification. The brownish
color is La Ferrassie 1, the green is Kebara 2, and the white is false human ...

[Elizabeth I]

What are you talking about?

[joobz]

For the eco-system of the planet these bacteria and germs have a role in the matter universe, otherwise we would have billions of the dead.
It is as it was in Noah’s' day.
what's your point?

What do you think you gain by saying bacteria were always arround? Do you believe anyone would doubt this?


A comet strike is the best explanation.
best explanation for what????

Evidence is there, if it was global that part of it may have ebbed and then receded to a point of containment and tidal flows, tsunamis and by the time it got past the equator it wasn't as devastating.assertion without fact.

It would explain happy feet and the penguins let alone Australia.what?
penguins let australia alone????
I would have to say that during this event that God eased up a bit.[/qoute]
Becuase there is no proof of the flood, you believe god went easy during the flood? this is just sad.
[quote=edge;3877643]After all he was remorseful in having to do so.god was sad that he had to kill all of humanity and life on earth save for 1 boat full of people? You make god sound like a wife-beater husband.

"Why do you make me hurt you?", said the abusive husband to his battered wife.


Genetic failure started before Noah’s time, genetic manipulation is what’s recorded.???


Lets see if you can put 2+2 together.
Reconstruction is in the eye of the beholder.
Just exactly who were these others?
We were both around at the same time?
Imagine that group, in the picture, with less hair and slightly more sophisticated.
Is it possible that both of these were around when man was around?
Ugly degenerations and great and renowned men, two ends of the spectrum of selective breeding?
I see what evolution may have produced and what God produced.
What are you claiming here?
that evolution is real?
I would agree.

That god made evolution? Sure. You are free to believe so.

But that wole selective breeding thing is just goofy.



We must have more in common with Neanderthals than with chimps, as far as genes.And the entire scientific community sighed a collective, "Duh."

[Foster Zygote]

A comet strike is the best explanation.
Then explain why the human population in North America thrived at the time.

[ponderingturtle]

Is there enough water on and around the earth to flood the entire earth?

Only if you assume radically different topography for the surface of the earth.

[Nogbad]

Only if you assume radically different topography for the surface of the earth.

Yet strangely Noah recognised a mountain when he landed on one.

[kedo1981]

Of all the things that the bible ***** believe in the flood myth has got to be the most pathetic.
Not only is it insultingly childish as a myth, but it makes these people embarrass themselves trying to find even the most implausibly of evidence.

Even if you disregard the all the “vapor canopy” “kinds” crap, but it also paints God as a complete evil psychopath, killing all the unborn, all the 3 year olds, all the hummingbirds, all the loyal dogs, all the blind, all the retarded.
Christians shouldn’t be looking for evidence of the flood, they should be trying to do a major cover up of it.

[edge]

Only if you assume radically different topography for the surface of the earth.

It is a possibility.

Yet strangely Noah recognised a mountain when he landed on one.Like mountains aren't different heights, at different times.
Or are all the same?

Then explain why the human population in North America thrived at the time. Explain which migration are you talking about and from which direction?
The people associated with the Clovis points seem to have vanished.

The Clovis culture is a prehistoric Native American culture that first appears in the archaeological record of North America around 13,500 years ago, at the end of the last ice age.
The culture is named for artifacts found near Clovis, New Mexico, where the first evidence of this tool complex was excavated in 1932. Earlier evidence included a mammoth skeleton with a spear-point in its ribs, found by a cowboy in 1926 near Folsom, New Mexico. Clovis sites have since been identified throughout all of the contiguous United States, as well as Mexico and Central America.
The Clovis people, also known as Paleo-Indians, are generally regarded as the the first human inhabitants of the New World, and ancestors of all the indigenous cultures of North and South America. However, this view has been recently contested by various archaeological finds which are claimed to be much older.
There are a number of controversial sites vying for the position of the earliest site in the region. The best evidence, however, suggests that a society of hunters and gatherers known as Clovis People were the first to settle in the Southwest, probably sometime before 9,500 B.C. The Clovis People were so named after the New Mexico town, site of the first discovery in 1932, near Clovis, N.M.

The culture lasted for about a half a millennium, from about 11,200 to 10,900 years ago. People of the Clovis culture were successful, efficient big-game hunters and foragers. Judging from sites on the North American Great Plains, the Clovis people were skilled hunters of huge animals, especially Ice Age mammoths and mastodons.
Around 10,500 years ago, Clovis abruptly vanish from the archaeological record, replaced by a myriad of different local hunter-gatherer cultures. Why this happened no one knows but their disappearance coincides with the mass extinction of Ice Age
http://www.crystalinks.com/clovis.html

Seems to fit right in the time-line.

The data the researchers collected narrowed the Clovis time frame to between 11,050 and 10,800 radiocarbon years ago. This translates to roughly 13,100 to 12,900 calendar years ago—a duration of 200 years.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070223-first-americans_2.html

The Clovis culture (sometimes referred to as the Llano culture[1]) is a prehistoric Paleoindian culture that first appears in the archaeological record of North America around 11,500 rcbp radiocarbon years ago, at the end of the last glacial period. Archaeologists' best guess at present suggests this is equal to roughly 13,000 calendar years ago. The Clovis culture is thought to have lasted from between 200 and 800 years, depending on the source consulted, with an average estimate of around 500 years, starting about 13,000 years ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture


kedo1981:says
Of all the things that the bible ***** Why would you resort to name-calling?

Seems like you are the only one painting, covering up.

My self I’m investigating, Edited for civility.

[joobz]

It is a possibility.

It is also a possibility that god kills us all in a horrible dismembering shockwave which obliterates the universe every hour only to be reformed the universe a year later in exact same way it was right before the shockwave hit.

[edge]

I have held for a long time that archaeology is a great ally of the Scriptures. But does archaeology prove the Bible? In the 20th anniversary issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1995), archaeologists address the greatest achievements of biblical archaeology, its greatest failures and the challenges that are left.
Many of the scholars-some of them Jewish archaeologists, some Christian archaeologists (but not evangelical or conservative)--deplored the attempts of evangelicals and conservatives to prove the religious truth claims of the Bible with archaeology.
That's exactly what I had been doing! Yet here were world-renowned archaeologists saying that this annoys them, and it's a misuse of archaeology.
When I read more, I found something else that the same archaeologists said with equal conviction. They said the field of archaeology has indeed confirmed, by and large, that the history of the Bible is sound.
Strange Schizophrenia
The late Francis A. Schaeffer described this strange schizophrenia in a fine little booklet titled Escape From Reason. The basic premise that Schaeffer develops helps us to understand why archaeologists can say that the Bible is accurate while continuing to assert that the Bible is not necessarily true.
Schaeffer explains how modern man has become schizoid in the way he views the world. He actually thinks about life on two different planes. Schaeffer calls them the upper story and the lower story. The lower story is where reality is--facts, science, laws of nature, the world as it really is. The upper story is where values, meaning, God, religion, faith and those kinds of things reside.
Modern man is split. On the lower story of reality, man is locked into a machinelike universe of cause and effect. We are just matter in motion. If there is to be meaning and significance, it must come from somewhere other than the real world. It must be invented in our imagination and believed against the facts through an irrational leap of faith.
Schaeffer calls this the second-story leap. Man invents significance, value and morality by making a blind leap of faith into the upper story.


The history in the Bible is a unique kind of history. By its very nature, it has ramifications for transcendent truth. If the Exodus happened as recorded, and we can give historical evidence for such a thing, there are unavoidable theological ramifications. If Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, as a point of historical fact, then we are forced to concede that the Lord is God in heaven and on earth.


http://www.ptm.org/JulBibleAccurate.htm

Pictures are from the bottom of the Red Sea, at a spot they figured they crossed during the exodus, chariot wheels and axels.

[Furi]

It is also a possibility that god kills us all in a horrible dismembering shockwave which obliterates the universe every hour only to be reformed the universe a year later in exact same way it was right before the shockwave hit.


It would have been easier to have the big g to guide Noah to a deep Cavern, and then trigger a massive prolonged coronal ejection and radiative flare from the then orbiting sun, no silly arc costruction, lots of deep subterranian caves etc to choose from, and apart from the geocentric model, it is almost feasible, a far more impressive show of power.

(and for Clarke/baxter fans, no technology at the time to build a giant sun shield either)

[Nogbad]

Like mountains aren't different heights, at different times.
Or are all the same?




Not really relevant if you have a flat topography in order to have enough water to cover the globe. By definition a mountain sticks up a fair bit above sea level - those that don't we tend to call plains, tundra or deserts. As Noah knew what a mountain was then one can safely assume that the topography was not flat. That mountain ranges can, over millions of years, change is a given of plate tectonics.

[Tanstaafl]

It is a possibility.



Like mountains aren't different heights, at different times.
Or are all the same? <snip>


Yes, we routinely see mountains flatten out and then jump back up to full height, all over the course of a year or two, which is what your scenario requires. :rolleyes:

[kedo1981]

So cutting and pasting from web sites that your youth pastor told you about is what you call "investigating"

[zenotter]

Edge, can you do us all a favor and use sites actually based in science/the scientific method? National Geographic, great. Crystallinks and The Plain Truth, I don't think so, as those are anything but scientific in nature. If you can find a scientist who happens to be a Christian, that would be helpful. Hugh Ross is the closest I've seen, but even some of his views don't jive all too well with the historical record. Thanks.

[Foster Zygote]

It is a possibility.

Like mountains aren't different heights, at different times.
Or are all the same?
You haven't the slightest idea what ponderingturtle was getting at, do you?


Explain which migration are you talking about and from which direction?
The people associated with the Clovis points seem to have vanished.
No, the Clovis culture ended. They stopped making specific types of tools and making their living in a specific way. The people themselves lived on. They just found new ways of making their livings. You would know this if you actually read any of the links you've provided.

http://www.crystalinks.com/clovis.html
Ellie Crystal? You've got to be kidding me.

Seems to fit right in the time-line.
What seems to fit? The non-extinction of the human population in North America? The total lack of evidence for the instant melting of the ice sheets over North America? You say you are a researcher, so research this: Tell us how much energy had to be released at one time in order to melt the North American glaciers. Then calculate the effect of that much energy on the rest of the planet.

[wollery]

http://www.ptm.org/JulBibleAccurate.htm

Pictures are from the bottom of the Red Sea, at a spot they figured they crossed during the exodus, chariot wheels and axels.Mistransliteration, it should be the Reed sea.

[Travis]

.
"we" wouldn't.
If anything survived at all, it's certain that it would evolve along much different lines than what we've seen, as Nature seems reluctant to do the same thing twice.
The co-joining of Twinkies and cockroaches... I wonder where that would lead?



To a delicious snack that runs and hides from you when you turn on the lights. To eat it you have to catch it first burning off the calories you get from it when you finally devour it.

Personally, I prefer my hydrogenated fat snacks immobile, that way I can start building up those love handles into real amorphous blob beauties.

bit of a derail but I couldn't let this pass by.

[GreNME]

Mistransliteration, it should be the Reed sea.

Actually, it would have been called the Yam Suf or Sea of Reeds by the Hebrews. The trouble is in determining what body of water was being referred to. The Red Sea is considered (first by Jews and later by Christians) to be the sea mentioned because of the mangroves and reeds that grow along the banks of the Red Sea. It's not a mistransliteration, it's a case of the translation not being exactly the same as the original language (which happens all the time). I believe the Jews today still call the Red Sea "Yam Suf" if I'm not mistaken.

That's neither proof nor disproof, and just because the names coincide does not lend credence to the claims that some god split the waters so that people could walk across the sea floor.

[edge]

Well here's some bones too.
I picked two from the goggle search.
Is there anything wrong with the Crystal information?

[edge]

Twinkys... GGooD!

[Foster Zygote]

Is there anything wrong with the Crystal information?

I suspect that you will defend most, if not all, that is to be found on that site. But let's let others judge for themselves.

www.crystalinks.com

[edge]

There's three different sources take your pick.

[Foster Zygote]

There's three different sources take your pick.

Considering that none of them support your assertion that a comet or asteroid impact was the cause of the Biblical flood, does it really matter?

[joobz]

I suspect that you will defend most, if not all, that is to be found on that site. But let's let others judge for themselves.

www.crystalinks.com (http://www.crystalinks.com)
Ouch. She's taken the insane train to crazy town.

The Theory of Evolution states that modern man evolved from the ape family.
No. man is part of the ape family.
This can not be verified as the 'missing link' has not as yet been found.
No, multiple ansectors between humans and a common great ape ansector are found.
There is no conclusive evidence to prove that man evolved from apes.
False, human chromosome 2 sealed this issue shut.
Footprints of modern man have been found side by side with dinosaur tracks.
This is just a crazy salad.
Archeological evidence exists that contradicts this theory of 'the origin of man'.
The evidence you assert and don't reference?
Modern human artifacts have been found in all layers of geological strata some going back hundreds of millions of years. strata isn't the only dating method. jeez.

These artifacts prove that modern man may be million of years older than history tells us.
No. This paragraph proves that the website is run by a crazy person.

[RandFan]

False, human chromosome 2 sealed this issue shut. Agreed 100% but it was conclusive long before that. It's hard to say when the evidence became overwhelming but it was long before we had the ability to map the human genome.

BTW, the whole missing link concept is an anachronism. It became an anachronism not long after it was posited. Looking for a missing link is like trying to find the "link" between an infant and an adult. At what point (age) is a person half baby and half adult? There are no missing links only transitional forms.

However, if creationists demand to cling to anachronistic ideas we have plenty of "missing links".

7w57_P9DZJ4

I used to be an ID proponent. There's nothing wrong with that... at least, so long as you don't know the facts. Once you know the facts one might as well deny gravity. The evidence really is that solid. It was solid decades ago.

Genetics only makes one an exceptional fool to cling to creationism in the light of so many fulfilled predictions based on evolution.

[edge]

Considering that none of them support your assertion that a comet or asteroid impact was the cause of the Biblical flood, does it really matter?

.It does support a culture that ended about 10-12 thousand years ago.
Her Clovis link is all that was relevant.
I used links from three diffrent types of web documentations.
No one said anything about missing links, matter of fact the people I'm talking about aren't really missing if they have been discovered and lived among our ancestors

Cave paaintings:
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/index3.html

[Foster Zygote]

.It does support a culture that ended about 10-12 thousand years ago.
The culture ended because it changed into something else. The horse culture ended with the advent of the automobile, but that doesn't mean that the people who used to rely on horses for transport were wiped out.

The people who used to rely on the Clovis technology to make their living did not disappear, they continued on and modified their culture. This is a huge problem for your claim. Especially if you want to adhere to a Biblically literalist interpretation of the flood narrative which claims that God used the flood to wipe out every human on Earth but Noah and his family.

Her Clovis link is all that was relevant.
And, like many other things that she copies from other sources it's fairly accurate. Yet it does not support your claim. It does not say that humans disappeared along with the large fauna. It does not say that the ice sheets melted all at once. The fact that the Clovis culture vanished and was replaced by something else does point to some major event, but there is nothing to suggest that that event involved the instant melting of the ice sheets.

I used links from three diffrent types of web documentations.
Then please quote the part where any of them state that an impact event melted the worlds glaciers all at once and caused the biblical flood.

No one said anything about missing links, matter of fact the people I'm talking about aren't really missing if they have been discovered and lived among our ancestors
The point of the "missing link" citation was to show just what a poor source of "scientific" information the crystalinks site is.

[joobz]

.It does support a culture that ended about 10-12 thousand years ago.
Her Clovis link is all that was relevant.
I used links from three diffrent types of web documentations.
No one said anything about missing links, matter of fact the people I'm talking about aren't really missing if they have been discovered and lived among our ancestors

Cave paaintings:
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/index3.html

Did you become a zombie at the end of your post?:p

[Foster Zygote]

Did you become a zombie at the end of your post?:p

I think the minimum requirement for zombie suspicion is three consecutive vowels. But I could be mistaaaaken.

[Rocko]

you're all over the place again.
How does a 30,000 year old carcass prove an event 10-15,000 years ago?

Indeed. I'd also be curious to know how this 30,000 year old carcass still exists. If all the ice melted 10-15k years ago, presumably it must have spent the 40 days and nights of the flood bobbing around in the water - and then somehow found its way back to north siberia to be frozen back in.

Does the condition of this carcass suggest it spent 40 days defrosted and floating in the water?

[zenotter]

Edge, can you do us all a favor and use sites actually based in science/the scientific method? National Geographic, great. Crystallinks and The Plain Truth, I don't think so, as those are anything but scientific in nature. If you can find a scientist who happens to be a Christian, that would be helpful. Hugh Ross is the closest I've seen, but even some of his views don't jive all too well with the historical record. Thanks.
Not that this matters at this point, but perhaps Edge isn't aware of what makes a good resource... reposting with fading hope...

[edge]

Does the condition of this carcass suggest it spent 40 days defrosted and floating in the water?
Well on one of my links they said they tried to eat some of the meat, (not that particular one), but they couldn't keep it down.

[edge]

This is interesting.

Mystery of the First Americans
Go to the companion Web site
In 1996, near Kennewick, Washington, a suspected murder victim is identified by forensic anthropologists as Caucasian - but turns out to be almost 10,000 years old. For fifty years our picture of prehistoric America has rested on the premise that the earliest inhabitants of the Americas were east Asians of mongoloid stock, the ancestors of today's Native Americans. But the discovery of the Kennewick Man, along with several other startling finds in recent years, has thrown that once widely accepted idea into question and revolutionized the science of paleo-anthropology. It has also embroiled scientists in a bitter conflict with Native American groups who want the scientific study of early Americans halted. Who and what do Kennewick Man and others represent? NOVA is following the efforts of paleo-anthropologists work to decode the story in the bones of people who died 10,000 years ago.
Original broadcast date: 02/15/2000
Topic: anthropology/ancient, medicine/forensic

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/


And this:
Go to the companion Web site
In 1856, bones of an unrecognizable hominid turned up in Germany's Neander Valley. This early human and others like it—sturdy, large-headed individuals—came to be known as Neanderthals. Despite a century and a half of study and debate, Neanderthals remain an enigma. Were they our ancestors, or an evolutionary dead-end? Were they assimilated into early modern (Cro Magnon) populations, or were they wiped out en masse in a Pleistocene genocide? "Neanderthals on Trial" investigates this long-standing mystery.
Original broadcast date: 1/22/2002
Topics: anthropology/ancient[/quote]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/

[Rocko]

Well on one of my links they said they tried to eat some of the meat, (not that particular one), but they couldn't keep it down.

Have you ever seen a carcass that's been in water for any length of time? After 40 days I doubt there'd be much left, let alone anything you'd want to taste.

Seriously, you don't see a problem here?

[skeptical]

While these flood threads are slightly amusing in a twisted sort of way, I always remember what PZ Meyers has to say about debating creationists: "at some point, they will just invoke a miracle and the game is over". (roughly paraphrasing)

This is especially true for the Noah myth. How did all the marsupials get from Australia to the Middle East, and then back? How did all of the animals, including dinosaurs, fit on the Ark? How did Noah and his small crew feed all the animals and clean the tons of poo that would have been created? Where did all the water come from and where did it go? Answers to all of these and others: God did it. Game over.

As Edge has demonstrated, Biblical literalists use empirical evidence the way a drunkard uses a lamppost. It's not that they don't value evidence, they do. It's just that the evidence they value is all contained in their holy book. By definition, they have already committed in principle to disregard any and all contrary empirical evidence. Supporting empirical evidence is only helpful as long as it leads others to "the truth", but it is not in and of itself important. They already know what the answer is, so they have little use for empirical evidence.

[edge]

Some Empirical evidence has remained; some or most has eroded away in the last 10,000 years.
The videos I presented are practical evidence.
Of course there is contradictory evidence that is presented by science of man, which isn’t perfect either, but there is a great deal of that as empirical evidences.

When you say there isn’t any evidence for a great flood but there is, so that’s a lie, my videos are a testament to that and using layering to prove it.

This area wasn’t covered by an ice sheet according to science, this area was never under an ocean in prehistory according to science at best it was an island that spanned hundreds of square miles it is pristine in nature and holds the record of such an event occurring with layering that covers only about 15,000 years.
There are no fossils here that indicate marine activity or any others that I have observed you have to travel away from here to even get an indication of pre-historical ocean beaches.
There is indication that lies in the same layers or below the top two layers of a massive mudslide that moved over hundreds of square miles and then the layering of sand on top of that.
I haven’t taken pictures of that yet.
This slide has destroyed a Red Wood forest in the prehistoric past and has been recorded by one of the government agencies in search of oil here.
There are no redwood forests this far inland and that could mean many things about the weather and the positions of the oceans in the past and there are great counter dictions there.


Have you ever seen a carcass that's been in water for any length of time? After 40 days I doubt there'd be much left, let alone anything you'd want to taste.

Seriously, you don't see a problem here?


But yet there they are.
Yes I see the problem, but I also see a solution.

It all depends upon the refreezing of the area after an impact of a comet and possible fragments and where the strikes occurred.
The flood had to travel from north to south how long the waters stayed in place is an issue, it may have lasted for many months in certain areas and in some it may have subsided rather quickly that’s what the evidence seems to point out.
It all depends on how cold the waters where in the area they are in.

If you ask me there seems to be a cover up of sorts, but by who and what?
Obviously the story isn’t perfect and man isn’t perfect but something happened, there can be no doubt about that.
To say there isn’t any evidence, well I can’t agree with you on that.

This area was covered in water in the last 12,000 years that’s a fact and layering proves that.
It had to breach the 3600-foot elevations to do that and deposit the amounts of sand in these valleys.
It had to be a massive amount of water that scoured these hills and or bring it in from the sea, (sand).

There is similar layering, in the Appalachian Mountains valleys also, I have seen them too, the top layers.



they have already committed in principle to disregard any and all contrary empirical evidence. Supporting empirical evidence is only helpful as long as it leads others to "the truth",

No one could give me a model to unite what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. - Glen Morton, former YEC

I’m looking for that model that will unite, and I do not disregard contrary evidence from man or science or the bible and or myth.
They all can’t be wrong and they all can’t be right and there lies the mystery.



There is other evidence for God in our lives.
So there’s the quandary for a believer and a skeptic.
No amount of evidence will convince a skeptic if they refuse to believe, but it may make a believer stand firm.

Sign of the biblical flood, in the heart of the valley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAPS1tXlh8E

Sign of the flood, in the heart of the valley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2bnE-k9Pw8

Closer look at the deposit and layering at the eastern end of the valley.
All of the videos below are at the eastern side of the valley, this formation is what you would expect from a wall of water breaching the mountain ranges from the west or pacific side which is only 80 miles due west as the crow fly.
There is also evidence that water breached from the north side as well. There is a wall of red mud that I haven’t filmed yet that is proof of that the mud slides that are on top and massive about thirty feet deep and on a northern slop. In the Hayfork valley thos layers are under one or more and I haven’t filmed them yet same place I talked about above reference, (the buried Red Woods).

My proofs :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMwYSGthmHw

Entire wave deposit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPZP1frICyk

Closer look at the wave from a lapping action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k35BiPbtbo

View of the entire wave deposit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE_hPJuPL_g

Wave of sand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz3bbOvE5VU

What a creek or river does with sand and how it looks when it’s moved in a natural flood or regular sorting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSvhgpbdGIM



Oldest ponderosa pine in Trinity Co.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50630

Is it also not possible that families from different parts of the world & race where saved, since most cultures have a myth? More than one Noah and the Hebrews version is a basis?

That's as close as I need to get as to your descriptions of my psyche. :)

[GeeMack]

Is it also not possible that families from different parts of the world & race where saved, since most cultures have a myth? More than one Noah and the Hebrews version is a basis?


So you're suggesting that the Noah flood story in the Christian bible isn't true?

[edge]

So you're suggesting that the Noah flood story in the Christian bible isn't true?

No it's true.

All the facts aren't in.

[joobz]

No it's true.

All the facts aren't in.
so,, then, the bible is wrong?

[edge]

Nooo the rest just isn't in there it's in other text mtyhs.
Proof is there, in geolagy.It's not all either. :)

[Foster Zygote]

No it's true.

All the facts aren't in.

Except the part where the Bible claims that every human perished but Noah and his family. That bit obviously can't be true. Remember all those people who didn't vanish in North America?

[joobz]

Except the part where the Bible claims that every human perished but Noah and his family. That bit obviously can't be true. Remember all those people who didn't vanish in North America?
and the part of noah living 600 years.

[Foster Zygote]

and the part of noah living 600 years.

Having no one but his family around only made it seem like 600 years.

[Olowkow]

Apparently no one else on earth owned a boat at the time, or they were all too clueless to hop in it and take some food when the rains came. Too busy being evil I guess.

[The Heretic]

I wouldn't rule out the big flood. If the evidence supports it then so do I. The only reason someone would be anti-deluge is because of religious or anti-religious agendas. If the evidence doesn't support it then we certainly are in the right to dismiss it.

[joobz]

I wouldn't rule out the big flood. If the evidence supports it then so do I. The only reason someone would be anti-deluge is because of religious or anti-religious agendas. If the evidence doesn't support it then we certainly are in the right to dismiss it.
and there you have it. there is no geological evidence of a world wide flood. There are, of course, evidences of regional floods, but that's not shocking.

[X]

I wouldn't rule out the big flood. If the evidence supports it then so do I. The only reason someone would be anti-deluge is because of religious or anti-religious agendas. If the evidence doesn't support it then we certainly are in the right to dismiss it.



THe evidence does not support, which is why most rational people do dismiss it.

The anti-flood attitude comes about when people, who are so literal in their belief set that they require it to be true, try to insist it is true, and demand it be acknowledge, studies, and taught.

Feel free to rule it out.

If you want the evidence of why it is safe to do so, read through this thread, or search the forum for past threads on the topic.
(Since the forum search tool is still kinda wonky, ask if you need help and somebody (whoever responds first) will provide some links for you.)



ETA: Joobz is too quick for me.

[edge]

The proof I have filmed is a flood that happens once in a lifetime or about 12,000 years ago. Wasn't a small, or regular local flood event, The only thing I can think of is Mt. saint Helens mud slides could match the ones here, only problem is there hasn't been an event here like that one, this was all water no volcanoes near here.
I will film those mudslides along the northern slopes soon.

[joobz]

The proof I have filmed is a flood that happens once in a lifetime or about 12,000 years ago. Wasn't a small, or regular local flood event, The only thing I can think of is Mt. saint Helens mud slides could match the ones here, only problem is there hasn't been an event here like that one, this was all water no volcanoes near here.
I will film those mudslides along the northern slopes soon.
Not to be pendantic but once in a life time equals an event that can happen every 70-100 years. If it was a "once in a lifetime event", you'd expect it to have occured ~120 times over the past 12,000 years.

[edge]

you really need to get out more! :)

[Elizabeth I]

The proof I have filmed is a flood that happens once in a lifetime or about 12,000 years ago. Wasn't a small, or regular local flood event, The only thing I can think of is Mt. saint Helens mud slides could match the ones here, only problem is there hasn't been an event here like that one, this was all water no volcanoes near here.
I will film those mudslides along the northern slopes soon.

Not to be pendantic but once in a life time equals an event that can happen every 70-100 years. If it was a "once in a lifetime event", you'd expect it to have occured ~120 times over the past 12,000 years.

AND if it happened 12,000 years ago, how did you get it on film?

Are you pushing time travel too now?

[edge]

After reading all this you can't figure it out?
You guys push evolution with the same methods, duh.

[Freethinker]

After reading all this you can't figure it out?
You guys push evolution with the same methods, duh.

Your posts are incoherent and one is totally unrelated to the one before. None of them make any sense individually, and as a whole they paint a picture of someone trolling the internet looking for things they don't understand and just regurgitating them into this thread. Several of your posts present excellent evidence against a worldwide flood. None of them present the slightest evidence for a worldwide flood.

[edge]

Go worship your noodly appendage, no one asked you.
You keep falling back to this; Your claims are all the same, we don’t understand you, you are incoherent, none of your posts make any sense, you’re a troll, well you’re a leprechaun, same old lines from the same old beliefs, and people.

It’s pretty simple you state there is no evidence, when in my videos there is, using the same principles that you use to prove evolution in the geological columns or layering, Duh…..

Only fresh bed-rock under that, so this place is unique since it holds only a record that dates back to the time periods necessary. No prehistoric fossils no dinosaur bones and the layering that would contain them.

So take it from there, one more thing, I have been here longer than you.

[joobz]

Go worship your noodly appendage, no one asked you.
You keep falling back to this; Your claims are all the same, we don’t understand you, you are incoherent, none of your posts make any sense, you’re a troll, well you’re a leprechaun, same old lines from the same old beliefs, and people.
He is not the only one who has stated that you are incoherent in your posts. I, too, have made that statement multiple times. Although, I have never called you a troll and do not believe you are.

Instead of claiming that we are both wrong, perhaps you should reevaluate your posts with a critical eye. They are extremely difficult to follow and have seemlingly very little relationship to eachother.

It’s pretty simple you state there is no evidence, when in my videos there is, using the same principles that you use to prove evolution in the geological columns or layering, Duh…..
What principles are these? What do you think counts as evidence in your videos? What alternate explanations could exist that would explain the phenomena that you present in those videos? Have you had third party reviewers analyze your evidence and conclusions and confirmed your analysis? peer-review is an extremely important part of how the evidence of evolution is evaluated and it is clear that you have not done that at all.

Only fresh bed-rock under that, so this place is unique since it holds only a record that dates back to the time periods necessary. No prehistoric fossils no dinosaur bones and the layering that would contain them.
Only fresh bed-rock under what?
How do you determine the time periods it dates back to? Based upon what analytical methods?
What time period do you consider necessary? How wide is the window that you allow?
I can't even guess why you talk about fossils and bones...

Perhaps you have archeological/geological journal articles that support your analysis methods used for the area you are talking about. If so, present them. Right now, I can't follow this paragraph at all since it has NO context.

So take it from there, one more thing, I have been here longer than you.
this point makes no sense and comes out of left field.

I'm sorry, Edge, but this reply substantiates Freethinker's point. Your posts tend to be incoherent and disjointed. there may be connections, but you fail to make them clear to us. I know it seems annoying to have to hand hold our way through your argument, but that is the way scientific research is done.

[Freethinker]

You keep falling back to this; Your claims are all the same, we don’t understand you, you are incoherent, none of your posts make any sense, you’re a troll, well you’re a leprechaun, same old lines from the same old beliefs, and people.


That's because your posts are incoherent and don't make any sense. The color of paint used in the bathroom at a 7-11 in Fargo, ND has as much to do with a worldwide flood as the fossil pictures and mudslides you post about. You don't even make an attempt to relate one post to a previous post.

What the hell does a Neanderthal fossil have to do with a flood? Nothing. Your posts have done a fairly decent job of disproving what you claim while providing no support whatsoever for your claim. Not only have you not presented proof of a worldwide flood, you haven't even presented any evidence to support it.

[Lanzy]

You're passionate Edge, and you have indeed been here longer than I and others (what is this evidence of?). I enjoy reading your hmmm, "interesting" threads. But you and a few other "not trolls" could really use some reading for comprehension skills. Your links go a long way to dis-proving your central thought of a real world wide flood. Maybe you are just cherry picking.

I'll fade away again.

[edge]

I'll make it simple as I can maybe, you say, "What the hell does a Neanderthal fossil have to do with a flood?"

Neanderthal = Nephlim....

[joobz]

I'll make it simple as I can maybe, you say, "What the hell does a Neanderthal fossil have to do with a flood?"

Neanderthal = Nephlim....
Ok. The flood occured when? and the Neaderthal died out when?

Unfortunately, the bible says the nephilim were the offspring of the daughters of men and the sons of god. If this were the case, there would be evidence of mitochondrial DNA between human and neanderthals.
This doesn't exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal


In order for your comparison to be right.
1.) The bible must be wrong about the origins of the nephilim
and
2.) the bible is wrong about when the flood happened
3.) Science is wrong about when the neanderthals died


and
4.) you need prove of a world wide flood.

[Shalamar]

The problem that Edge (and in fact many creationists) has, is that he has a pre-concieved notion in that 'the great flood of the bible happened'. Now that he knows the conclusion, he will go forth and find evidence that may support his claim, discarding or warping anything that doesn't. Science takes the evidence, forming a conclusion from it. this is why they fail.

[Foster Zygote]

I'll make it simple as I can maybe, you say, "What the hell does a Neanderthal fossil have to do with a flood?"

Neanderthal = Nephlim....

Gee edge, I thought the Nephilim were supposed to be giants. The average male Neanderthal was 5'5" tall.

ETA: And you still haven't answered my previous question. Did the flood kill all humans other than Noah and his family? If so, how do you explain all the humans who lived in North America during and after the time you claim this flood occurred?

[edge]

People can migrate across the world in less than 200 years.

[edge]

descendents of Nephilim are the giants, Nephilim where the ones breeding with
humans.

Anakim - race of giants.

Anakims = "long-necked"
1. a tribe of giants, descendants of Anak, which dwelled in southern Canaan

I should have used this, descendants of Anak. My bad.

Scripture uses other names to describe these degraded fallen angels and their descendents in addition to the word Nephilim, they are. . . .

· Rephaim - from the root rapha = spirits, shades Gen. 14:5
· Anakim - race of giants Num. 13:33 descendents of Nephilim
· Emim - the proud deserters, terrors, race of giants Gen. 14:5
· Zuzim- the evil ones, roaming things Gen. 14:5
· Zamzummims - the evil plotters, Deut. 2:20
· Zophim - watchers, angels who descended Num. 23, distinct from "holy watchers" aligned with God
· Sepherim - the many. . . .

[RandFan]

Except the part where the Bible claims that every human perished but Noah and his family. That bit obviously can't be true. Remember all those people who didn't vanish in North America?

Ooops...

Noah's flood is the quintessential example of childish adherence to ancient mythology.

If a person chooses to first accept that the story is true then that person can work to find evidence to confirm his or her bias and ignore the evidence counter to the Jack and the Beanstalk style tall tale.

If on the other hand a person chooses to first follow the evidence where it leads there is no need for entertaining the thought that there was a world wide flood once one understands the distribution of humans and animals throughout the world. Asians didn't develop their diversity and language in a few thousand years. Animals didn't walk to Australia and develop a unique diversity (marsupials) in a few thousand years. This is what is known as hyper evolution and it's a very bizarre argument for believers in Noah's ark to make.

Noah's ark? The problems presented are simply insurmountable unless of course one throws in "god can do anything".

If that's your position then #@%^ the evidence. What possible difference could evidence have to do with anything if "god did it" is your explanation?

BTW, that's how magicians saw the woman in half. God's omnipotent power.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

descendents of Nephilim are the giants, Nephilim where the ones breeding with
humans.

5'5" Neanderthals plus 6'0" Humans equals giants...gothca.

[Civilized Worm]

If on the other hand a person chooses to first follow the evidence where it leads there is no need for entertaining the thought that there was a world wide flood once one understands the distribution of humans and animals throughout the world. Asians didn't develop their diversity and language in a few thousand years. Animals didn't walk to Australia and develop a unique diversity (marsupials) in a few thousand years. This is what is known as hyper evolution and it's a very bizarre argument for believers in Noah's ark to make.


Especially bizarre given that most of the people that make that argument are otherwise evolution deniers.

[RandFan]

Especially bizarre given that most of the people that make that argument are otherwise evolution deniers. Yeah but they have adopted a rather odd belief in evolution.

[edge]

Noah's ark? The problems presented are simply insurmountable unless of course one throws in "god can do anything".

I haven't played that card yet, or I don't think I have.

Since you brought it up there are a couple of indications that he did.


The best one is,
Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.


He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf!
Trees just can’t grow back that quick.

Sounds like he recreated everything, including animals that weren’t with Noah.

Who knows, too bad there aren’t more details?

But you can contradict those too, so we’ll leave it at that.

[Foster Zygote]

Trees just can’t grow back that quick.

Nor do beanstalks grow into the clouds. But it must be true. After all, it's right there in English Fairy Tales by Joseph Jacobs.

[RandFan]

Nor do beanstalks grow into the clouds. But it must be true. After all, it's right there in English Fairy Tales by Joseph Jacobs.:)

There's a book out there somewhere about how myths become fact. Elvis isn't dead. In two thousand years there could be a religion around Elvis and people would point to all of the documented witness accounts that Elvis never died.

Any myth can become fact. It simply requires a leap of faith.

"Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." --Jesus Christ.

[Foster Zygote]

"Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." --Jesus Christ.

"Unless they choose to believe the wrong thing that they never actually saw, then they are damned."

[Tricky]

Trees just can’t grow back that quick.

Sounds like he recreated everything, including animals that weren’t with Noah.

ROTFL. Edge you are a card! A tiny little miracle, like a tree growing back quicky, is discarded in favor of a "recreate the whole earth" megamiracle. It is obvious that you actually prefer magical explanations, and the more magical the better.

So why even bother trying to show evidence for the natural occurance of anything when you're just going to settle for God poofing it all into existance anyway?

[joobz]

ROTFL. Edge you are a card! A tiny little miracle, like a tree growing back quicky, is discarded in favor of a "recreate the whole earth" megamiracle. It is obvious that you actually prefer magical explanations, and the more magical the better.

So why even bother trying to show evidence for the natural occurance of anything when you're just going to settle for God poofing it all into existance anyway?
I've asked this exact same question several times.

[edge]

So why even bother trying to show evidence for the natural occurance of anything when you're just going to settle for God poofing it all into existance anyway?

Because you say it isn't there, because it is, I show it.
I am going to see if those same layers are in western Colorado also.

I know that they are in Indiana.
If you are talking about God using his powers then to us it might seem magical.
So?

[Tricky]

Because you say it isn't there, because it is, I show it.
I am going to see if those same layers are in western Colorado also.

I know that they are in Indiana.
Problem is, even if they were there you wouldn't know it because you don't know anything about geology. You demonstrated that many times, back when you were trying to prove dowsing.

The first thing you could do to save yourself a trip, is buy a couple of detailed geology maps (http://geology.about.com/od/stategeologicmaps/Geologic_Maps_of_the_US_States.htm)and see if the rocks are even the same age.


If you are talking about God using his powers then to us it might seem magical. So?
It would be magical. The whole concept of God is, in every way, magical. What you haven't done is to show us that a single magical thing has occurred. Oh, yeah, we all know you believe it, but ya know, faith isn't evidence. Demonstrating your ignorance isn't evidence either. It explains nothing but your faith.

[edge]

Problem is, even if they were there you wouldn't know it because you don't know anything about geology. You demonstrated that many times, back when you were trying to prove dowsing.



I guess my memory is sooo bad I forgot everything I learned?
Is that right?
On top Of that I mine so none of that counts either.

There feel better?

The age of the rock there doesn't mean anything if the proof is on the top layers, that's even better.

[Tricky]

The age of the rock there doesn't mean anything if the proof is on the top layers, that's even better.
That is the sort of ludicrously incorrect statement that I've come to expect from you. The top layers may be modern or they may be ancient, depending on the area. The top layers vary tremendously world-wide, completely nixing the possibility of a recent (within the last ten-thousand years) worldwide flood.

Do you even have a clue what flood sediments look like?

[Foster Zygote]

That is the sort of ludicrously incorrect statement that I've come to expect from you. The top layers may be modern or they may be ancient, depending on the area. The top layers vary tremendously world-wide, completely nixing the possibility of a recent (within the last ten-thousand years) worldwide flood.

Do you even have a clue what flood sediments look like?

Let's just be glad Edge doesn't fancy himself a brain surgeon.

[RandFan]

"Unless they choose to believe the wrong thing that they never actually saw, then they are damned."

Excellent point. Make damn certain you pick the right belief without evidence.

Hindu.
Islam.
Sikhism.
Mormonism.
Seventh Day Adventist.
Jehova's Witness.

[Smackety]

I like the insinuation that every geologist who ever lived somehow missed this layer of flood debris found everywhere on the planet in the top couple layers of soil that can be dated to the same event.

[Smackety]

'The story of Noah is unlikely, and besides trees cannot grow that fast therefore God recreated the entire earth and everything on it' (wasn't Noah still afloat at the time?) is also classic.

[Tricky]

I like the insinuation that every geologist who ever lived somehow missed this layer of flood debris found everywhere on the planet in the top couple layers of soil that can be dated to the same event.
It displays an almost infantile grasp of geology. Biblical diluvians seem to think the earth filled up like a bathtub. The only time they even think about the erosive power of so much rain is when they try to explain things like the Grand Canyon, which, by their mysterious calculations, was eroded while covered with water.

The thing to remember is that such a cataclysmic event would yield a churning world-wide ocean full of sediment, floating, and suspended debris and dead creatures. As the weather calmed and the waters receded, this debris would be deposited in a coarse, jumbled layer of mixed sediment types. Fossils of large land animals would be carried offshore and buried in the rapidly settling sediments. While we do occasionally find such things, since dead animals often do get flushed into the oceans and float around for a while, they are relatively rare in recent sediments and they are not buried as rapidly as you would expect in the calming of a gigantic flood event. If there were such a killing flood, you'd also find a pretty good number of fairly recent human remains in deep ocean sediments, something that I don't recall ever hearing anything about.

To believe in this scenario requires that one ignore geology in general and sedimentology in particular at a scale that can only be achieved by the spectacularly and intentionally ignorant.

I have successfully explained sedimentology to six-year olds, but I cannot make Edge understand it. Six-year-olds rarely exhibit deliberate ignorance.

[Smackety]

I agree. I find it stupid at so many levels that it is like watching a cartoon, it is great to lurk in threads like this, it is like watching Jerry Springer.
I do hope that edge and others are educable, and in fact, that it is a deep seated dissatisfaction with the world view they were raised to believe that has led them here, so hopefully my mockery will do no harm, but still, some things are so ridiculous they cannot be considered seriously.

[edge]

I agree. I find it stupid at so many levels, when my finger in the video, is pointing to sediment of clay and sand that’s on average 12 feet thick.
And in the other video its about 25 feet thick.
Tricky go back to your sixth graders.

[RandFan]

It displays an almost infantile grasp of geology. Biblical diluvians seem to think the earth filled up like a bathtub. The only time they even think about the erosive power of so much rain is when they try to explain things like the Grand Canyon, which, by their mysterious calculations, was eroded while covered with water.

...

I have successfully explained sedimentology to six-year olds, but I cannot make Edge understand it. Six-year-olds rarely exhibit deliberate ignorance. Agreed.

The Age of Our World Made Easy

w5369-OobM4

[Tricky]

I agree. I find it stupid at so many levels, when my finger in the video, is pointing to sediment of clay and sand that’s on average 12 feet thick.
And in the other video its about 25 feet thick.
Meaning that sedimentation rates vary greatly around the world and indeed within very narrow geographical ranges. One would expect to see sediment thickness much greater at river mouths than in deep ocean, and such is exactly the case. This is something every geologist knows. Indeed, isopach maps (maps of sediment thickness) are important tools for determining depositional environment.

Tricky go back to your sixth graders.
I will. I guest lecture at local schools sometimes. If one of them went up against you on a contest of geological knowledge, I'd bet on them every time. There is a lot they don't yet know, but they are not willfully ignorant.

[edge]

I know what you know and then I know what I know.
Just because I am looking at what is actually in nature; doesn't make some one willfully ignorant.
I am applying what I see and checking and questioning everything, with what I have been taught and told to be true through whatever means as a learning process that I went through, both scientific and religious wise.

I can see the flaws in both.
I can play skeptic and be just like you, so happens the evidence that I present, is from the opposite side of the fence.

John 3:8

[Foster Zygote]

I am applying what I see and checking and questioning everything, with what I have been taught and told to be true through whatever means as a learning process that I went through, both scientific and religious wise.

The above sentence says it all.

[Tricky]

I know what you know and then I know what I know.
You know very little about geology. You have beliefs not based on knowledge.

Just because I am looking at what is actually in nature; doesn't make some one willfully ignorant.
It does if they have resources available that can show them where they are in error, but they refuse to use them and make the same erroneous claims. You can't learn geology from a creationist website, Edge. You learn it from geology books. To do otherwise is willful ignorance.

Now if you want to just admit that you don't know, that is fine. It is only when you try to pass yourself as knowledgeable that you embarrass yourself.

I I am applying what I see and checking and questioning everything, with what I have been taught and told to be true through whatever means as a learning process that I went through, both scientific and religious wise.
You have not been taught well, and you have not been told the truth. Not about science, at any rate. This has been pointed out to you numerous times and people have even given you sources where you could learn, yet you still make the same erroneous claims. About science, you are willfully and stubbornly ignorant.

I can see the flaws in both.
I can play skeptic and be just like you, so happens the evidence that I present, is from the opposite side of the fence.
You have no evidence. You have belief. If evidence conflicts with your belief, you ignore the evidence or let some religious website tell you that you are still right in your belief.

If you want to be religious, that is fine. But if you deny libraries full of evidence that go completely against a global flood because they conflict with your religious beliefs, then you are being willfully ignorant. And that's a shame.

[edge]

Calling me names doesn't nullify the video evidence I presented.
What I found came from me not some web site.
I haven't ignored any of the evidence from either side of this argument; I still know your side.
If your psyche needs to put me down to make you feel, greater/better that’s your problem.
Typical tactic, attack the messenger.

[RandFan]

I haven't ignored any of the evidence from either side of this argument; I still know your side. There is a group that to this day, in the 21st Century, believe that the world is flat (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2941,-Do-they-really-think-the-earth-is-flat,BBC-News).

How is that possible? Well, they don't ignore any of the evidence from either side of the argument. They know the side that says the earth isn't flat.

Evidence doesn't matter to the person that doesn't want it to matter.

Let me tell you what the evidence is and you demonstrate to everyone how the evidence simply doesn't matter.

Science is predictive.
Different scientific disciplines of science support each other.
Scientists use one method to date the layers of the earth. Other scientists from a different discipline use a different method and get the same date. Based on these facts prediction are made and attempts are made to falsify the conclusions.
These methods are peer reviewed and then replicated.
Scientists who have an ego and disagree try and tear down the claims made by these scientists. There is much at stake for those who can disprove the theories and indeed it is typical for the theories to be challenged in the scientific arena.
Over and over all disciplines come to the same conclusions.

Creations scientists have every opportunity to find a dating method of their own. They could make predictions based on these methods and demonstrate that the earth is younger than it is or that there was a world wide flood by publishing peer reviewed papers but they don't do that.

The evidence against the flood is as good as the evidence that the earth is not flat.

The evidence provided in this video is conclusive and puts to rest the silly arguments of your video.

wg1fs6vp9Ok

That said, feel free to believe what ever you want. You will anyway.

[Freethinker]

Calling me names doesn't nullify the video evidence I presented.
What I found came from me not some web site.
I haven't ignored any of the evidence from either side of this argument; I still know your side.
If your psyche needs to put me down to make you feel, greater/better that’s your problem.
Typical tactic, attack the messenger.

Care to point out a post where someone has called you names? It hasn't happened.

You aren't even making a point, and everyone is pointing that out, but you apparently aren't aware of the concept of constructing an argument. You post random pieces of information, interspersed with your uneducated ideas about geology, and you call it proof. Here's how your "argument" looks to an educated person:

Edge: I have proof of a worldwide flood as told about in the bible, only it didn't happen when the bible said it did, and it didn't happen like the bible said it did, and god had to wiggle his nose to make everything grow back after the flood.

JREF Forum: It didn't happen. There is overwhelming evidence it didn't happen, and common sense and a basic understanding of the planet tells you it couldn't have happened.

Edge: Daisies have stems that are a different color than the flower. See, I have a video of a daisy, and anybody can see that the stem and flower aren't the same color. I'll make some videos of other flowers to show you it had to happen just like the bible didn't say it happened. Proof!

JREF Forum: What the hell does that have to do with a flood?

Edge: Quit calling me names! You can't defeat my brilliant argument so you attack me. Waaaaah!

[Tricky]

Care to point out a post where someone has called you names? It hasn't happened.
I'm assuming he means the many times I have called him "willfully ignorant". Is that "calling names"? Since it is hard to envision a case where being willfully ignorant is a complimentary term, I suppose it is. But I have not done so without justification and I have not done so in an attempt to revile Edge, only to point out one of his traits.

When discussing politics, people shout out terms like "liberal" and "right-winger" as if they were insults, and perhaps they are meant to be. But if the persons to whom they are applied really are liberals or right wingers, then it is hard to argue that it is wrong to call them such.

Now I've given Edge several examples of evidence, strong evidence, why there has never been a world-wide flood. These examples can be verified if one wants to do some genuine research. Edge has not responded in a reasonable way to these examples. He has not explained the lack of worldwide flood beds containing drowned humans. He has not explained the lack of sufficient water for covering the world. He has not explained the collection and dispersion of koalas, penguins, polar bears and numerous other creatures not native to the area around where the bible was written. He has not explained the survival of salinity-sensitive species of aquatic animals in mixed fresh-salt water. He has not explained how there are cultures much older that the biblical flood story which make no mention of a worldwide flood and the complete destruction of life. I can give numerous other examples of things Edge hasn't explained.

Not only has Edge not explained these things, he has made no serious attempt to reconcile his preferred myth with the mountains of evidence against it. He appears to be happy with the "God can do anything" broom that sweeps all evidence under the rug. That sort of position is very correctly identified as "willful ignorance". It may be name-calling, but if so, then to call a spade a spade is also name-calling.

[joobz]

Not only has Edge not explained these things, he has made no serious attempt to reconcile his preferred myth with the mountains of evidence against it. He appears to be happy with the "God can do anything" broom that sweeps all evidence under the rug. That sort of position is very correctly identified as "willful ignorance". It may be name-calling, but if so, then to call a spade a spade is also name-calling.
Tricky, Perhaps you can shed light on another element in Edge's argument.

He has used events that have been dated to occur between 6,000-30,000 years ago as being consistent with a flood. When describing these events, he explains further that this is reasonable in time scale to when the flood would have happened.

Now, how accurate is geological dating methods in the 10-50thousand year window? For his argument to work, geological dating methods would have to have a margin of error >150%.

[Freethinker]

I'm assuming he means the many times I have called him "willfully ignorant". Is that "calling names"? Since it is hard to envision a case where being willfully ignorant is a complimentary term, I suppose it is.

"Willfully Ignorant", while not complimentary, is nothing more than an adjective describing ones state of knowledge about a topic, and an adverb describing the reason for the ignorance. His ignorance of geology and science in general is clear from his posts, and the willfulness is clear from his refusal to learn when he is given information that should correct the ignorance.

Ignorance is a treatable condition. Knowledge is the cure. Calling Edge willfully ignorant is a simple statement of fact about a condition he has chosen.

[Tricky]

Tricky, Perhaps you can shed light on another element in Edge's argument.

He has used events that have been dated to occur between 6,000-30,000 years ago as being consistent with a flood. When describing these events, he explains further that this is reasonable in time scale to when the flood would have happened.

Now, how accurate is geological dating methods in the 10-50thousand year window? For his argument to work, geological dating methods would have to have a margin of error >150%.
Like all dating methods, the most important thing is to have a solid datum. In the 10-50K range, chemical methods of dating, like carbon-14 are not nearly as accurate as anthropological records which can be correlated to nearby sites and widely know events, and eventually tied to a solid datum that can be checked in multiple sites.

The legend of Gilgamesh, which is the source of much of the biblical flood story, is dated to about the 26th century BC. If you see a global flood story, it is almost certainly after that date.

Carbon-14 dating accuracy for events of this age has an accuracy of about 500 to 1000 years, depending on many factors.

[Tricky]

"Willfully Ignorant", while not complimentary, is nothing more than an adjective describing ones state of knowledge about a topic, and an adverb describing the reason for the ignorance. His ignorance of geology and science in general is clear from his posts, and the willfulness is clear from his refusal to learn when he is given information that should correct the ignorance.

Ignorance is a treatable condition. Knowledge is the cure. Calling Edge willfully ignorant is a simple statement of fact about a condition he has chosen.
Exactly. What Edge refers to as "calling names" is essentially "accurate labeling" that is supported by evidence.

[joobz]

Like all dating methods, the most important thing is to have a solid datum. In the 10-50K range, chemical methods of dating, like carbon-14 are not nearly as accurate as anthropological records which can be correlated to nearby sites and widely know events, and eventually tied to a solid datum that can be checked in multiple sites.

The legend of Gilgamesh, which is the source of much of the biblical flood story, is dated to about the 26th century BC. If you see a global flood story, it is almost certainly after that date.

Carbon-14 dating accuracy for events of this age has an accuracy of about 500 to 1000 years, depending on many factors.

that's 4600 years ago, with a margin of dating error from 5600 to 3600 years ago. In other words, any evidence that Edge presents that falls outside that window can be considered unrelated.

[Correa Neto]

So, edge does not accept geological evidence other than those presented by creationist sites. Its a dead end.

Let me then ask my standard questions:

How the fish survived?
Heck, fishes -and their eggs- are very sensible to variations in salinity, acidity, diluted oxigen, turbidity, flow and pressure. Anyone who ever had a fish tank at home knows how quickly fish die when water conditions are not within certain limits -it does not take a PhD. How they survived the massive changes in water conditions that a global flood would cause? They were not in the ark, after all. At least 40 days of very bad water conditions... Much more actually, since water conditions at oceans, rivers, lakes, etc. would still have to return to teir original status. No "canopy" bs speculation can account for this.

How come benthic animals and plants survived?

How come planktonic animals and vegetals survived?

How land plants survived?

Goddidit? What the creationists say about this?

[Foster Zygote]

that's 4600 years ago, with a margin of dating error from 5600 to 3600 years ago. In other words, any evidence that Edge presents that falls outside that window can be considered unrelated.

Just as an aside: I remember hearing a TV preacher mocking dating methods. He very theatrically told his listeners that a certain fossil had been dated to within a few million years. He made a huge deal about the supposedly ridiculous inaccuracy of dating something to plus or minus over a million years. Of course he never emphasized the fact that the fossils were so old that the range for the dating amounted to only a few percentage points.

[Tricky]

Just as an aside: I remember hearing a TV preacher mocking dating methods. He very theatrically told his listeners that a certain fossil had been dated to within a few million years. He made a huge deal about the supposedly ridiculous inaccuracy of dating something to plus or minus over a million years. Of course he never emphasized the fact that the fossils were so old that the range for the dating amounted to only a few percentage points.
This is kind of the problem many people, not just religious people have with evolution. The numbers are so big. It is hard for them to conceive of such long periods of time. It makes humanity seem so inconsequential. It goes against the natural urge to feel important, the same urge that drives humans to create gods in their image.

[Silentknight]

Tricky, Perhaps you can shed light on another element in Edge's argument.

He has used events that have been dated to occur between 6,000-30,000 years ago as being consistent with a flood. When describing these events, he explains further that this is reasonable in time scale to when the flood would have happened.

Now, how accurate is geological dating methods in the 10-50thousand year window? For his argument to work, geological dating methods would have to have a margin of error >150%.

You think that's something? What about his response when I posted these North American paleogeographic maps (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/nam.html)? They show that yes, North America was once covered with a huge sea, but at different times and at different places. The gradual recession of a sea into the ocean can deposit sands (since shorelines are made of sand after all) like the kind edge loves to talk about, over very long periods of time.

Predictably enough, he tried to reconcile these maps with the biblical flood story. The only problem is that the North American sea in question existed about 350 million years ago. That's an even bigger margin of error if you ask me. It's so big, humans weren't even around back then. :D

[Tricky]

You think that's something? What about his response when I posted these North American paleogeographic maps (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/nam.html)? They show that yes, North America was once covered with a huge sea, but at different times and at different places. The gradual recession of a sea into the ocean can deposit sands (since shorelines are made of sand after all) like the kind edge loves to talk about, over very long periods of time.

Predictably enough, he tried to reconcile these maps with the biblical flood story. The only problem is that the North American sea in question existed about 350 million years ago. That's an even bigger margin of error if you ask me. It's so big, humans weren't even around back then. :D
True, but even then the continent wasn't completely submerged. Of course, the continents looked a great deal different then. From your link, here is what is essentially the North American Plate about 325 million years ago. The big igneous mass we now call The Canadian Shield has never, to my knowlege, been completely under water.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/namM325.jpg

[Elizabeth I]

This is kind of the problem many people, not just religious people have with evolution. The numbers are so big. It is hard for them to conceive of such long periods of time. It makes humanity seem so inconsequential. It goes against the natural urge to feel important, the same urge that drives humans to create gods in their image.

I take care of that easily enough. I just think of everything like that as having happened - oh, around last week. OK, maybe the dinosaurs were a couple of months ago. :D

It's as if my mind just mushes everything together in one envelope marked "The Past."

[Silentknight]

True, but even then the continent wasn't completely submerged. Of course, the continents looked a great deal different then. From your link, here is what is essentially the North American Plate about 325 million years ago. The big igneous mass we now call The Canadian Shield has never, to my knowlege, been completely under water.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/namM325.jpg

Oh yeah, thanks a lot for stretching out the page so that I have to scroll over or increase my resolution just to see the names next to each post. :rolleyes:

But that's exactly my point. In addition to the 350 million year discrepancy (give or take a few thousand years) edge claimed that the maps from the link I posted somehow proved that the whole thing was underwater at one time. Based on what you pointed out, it sounds like he contradicted his own argument with that one.

[Madalch]

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/namM325.jpg
I swear, I'm stealing that map for my AD&D campaign.

[Tricky]

Oh yeah, thanks a lot for stretching out the page so that I have to scroll over or increase my resolution just to see the names next to each post. :rolleyes:
LOL. Can I help it if your link pointed at big maps? That really is a great site, BTW. It is extremely helpful to see the continent shapes with country and state boundaries superimposed.

But that's exactly my point. In addition to the 350 million year discrepancy (give or take a few thousand years) edge claimed that the maps from the link I posted somehow proved that the whole thing was underwater at one time. Based on what you pointed out, it sounds like he contradicted his own argument with that one.
As I recall, the time when the oceans were at their highest since life appeared on the planet was the Late Cretaceous. Looking at that map (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/namK85.jpg), you can see that the so-called Cretaceous Seaway cut right through what is now the midwest.

It is also fascinating to look at maps showing the former configurations of continents (http://www.geog.nau.edu/courses/alew/ggr346/text/maps/continental-drift2.jpg). I have seen some willfully ignorant creationists try to use the evidence that back in the Permian, about 300 million years ago, the continental plates were very close to each other, to support the ark story. The proximity of all continents, some of them say, explains how Koalas and Polar Bears migrated to the ark. Of course, no mammalian fossils of any kind are found in Permian rocks. Heck, dinosaurs were just starting. This is exactly the kind of cherry-picking that many creationists do, taking a well-accepted scientific notion, like Pangea, and completely misusing it and ignoring the majority of it in a sad attempt to support their myths.

[Toke]

I am not sure i got the op right.

Are you trying to?

A: Explain the noah myth as in, whale tooth and unicorn, elefant skull and cyclops.

B: Validate the bible.

[RandFan]

When I was a true blue believing anti-evolutionist I would trumpet any scientific evidence that fit my world view. No skepticism or critical thinking needed. However, if the evidence was counter to that view then it was clearly wrong. It's so easy to accept without any thought what we like and dismiss what we don't like.

Science doesn't work that way.

That's why I'm no longer a true believer. I had to decide whether science was a legitimate means to find the truth or not. This doesn't mean I find science to be infallible. Not at all. By all means question the theories. That's what make science so powerful. The theories that can withstand questioning rise to the top. All truths are held provisionally.

I like science.

[joobz]

When I was a true blue believing anti-evolutionist I would trumpet any scientific evidence that fit my world view. No skepticism or critical thinking needed. However, if the evidence was counter to that view then it was clearly wrong. It's so easy to accept without any thought what we like and dismiss what we don't like.

And This is the part I have the greatest trouble explaining. People who do as you say also assume that scientists do the same thing. You'll hear phrases like, "Well you have your facts and I have mine." As though we are equal in our dishonesty.

[edge]

I am not sure i got the op right.

Are you trying to?

A: Explain the noah myth as in, whale tooth and unicorn, elefant skull and cyclops.

B: Validate the bible.

B. With real time evidence from the geological column.
The rest has already been presented, so we have a stack of older evidence.

To say there is none is a lie. :)

[edge]

Like I said before, where I live in relation to that BIG picture of Trickys' still isn't under water.

[edge]

Or is that picture accurate?

[Toke]

In my country creationist is an american sect. Our priest (state church) are all teological graduates and would not dream of taking creationism or id serius.

They would not mix biology class with religion class.

There are a few priests who would not skake hands with a female priest, and the church does not perform gay marriage, city hall do.

[Freethinker]

B. With real time evidence from the geological column.
The rest has already been presented, so we have a stack of older evidence.

To say there is none is a lie. :)

If there is any evidence, you haven't cited it. You have posted quite a bit of evidence that could be used to argue that such a flood didn't occur, but not even one hint that it did.

[Toke]

The bible have a bit about not testing your god?

Does thay make creationist heretics, for looking for evidence?

You could go for a bigger miracle.
God made the water out of thin air, then removed it and restored all the damage.
The ark would then be a test of noah´s faith and not a practical neccecity.

[Cainkane1]

The myth doesn't become reality because according to the fundys the Noahs flood covered Mt. Everest. By the way. Wouldn't it be cool if a three mile wide comet struck mars? Lots of water there then.

[Freethinker]

The myth doesn't become reality because according to the fundys the Noahs flood covered Mt. Everest. .

It also covered the mountain that was tall enough to see "all the kingdoms of the world" according to Luke 4. How tall does a mountain have to be for one to see the other side of a sphere from the top? How much water did it take to cover that mountain?

[Tricky]

B. With real time evidence from the geological column.
The rest has already been presented, so we have a stack of older evidence.

To say there is none is a lie.
Do you understand the geological column? Do you understand the paleostratigraphy, biostratigriphy and lithostratigraphy of sedimentary rocks? Do you realize that humans only appear in the very top of the geological column?

There is no evidence for a global flood that has been accepted by the geological community and I seriously doubt you could find one in peer-reviewed journals. Virtually all other evidence is against it too, many pieces of which have been presented to and ignored by you.

You have not presented a single piece of evidence that can survive even the most gentle scientific scrutiny. Your answer to the numerous major flaws in the flood story is "God can do anything". So don't even try to pretend that there is anything even remotely scientific in your contentions, nor do you show any interest in finding out why. You are ignorant of science. Willfully.

[ Like I said before, where I live in relation to that BIG picture of Trickys' still isn't under water.
So what? Are you laboring under the delusion that this comment has any bearing on the issue of a global flood?

Now if you show that you are genuinely interested, I might be willing to walk you through some of the basics, just like I do in the elementary schools. But if you insist on your ignorance, then I decline to waste my time on people who have no interest in learning.


Or is that picture accurate? It has to have some things generalized. Because the plates don't keep their shape, the overlay of the boundaries is not going to be perfect. Think if you drew the outline of West Virginia on a wad of very crushed and folded paper. Then, think what that outline would look like if you stretched the paper out flat again. This is one of the things geologists do. They go backward in time to reconstruct what things used to look like. It is a fascinating bit of detective work.

[edge]

Ya right, unless you were there you really don't know do you Tricky.

The bible have a bit about not testing your god?

Does that make creationist heretics, for looking for evidence?

You could go for a bigger miracle.
God made the water out of thin air, then removed it and restored all the damage.
The ark would then be a test of Noah’s faith and not a practical necessity.


If you deny the flood then the skeptics can deny Jesus.

To minister doesn't make you a heretic, archeology is proving what was once myth isn't anymore and when the skeptics say that Jericho and Sodom was a myth and then they are discovered, what do you think it proves?
That there is truth in the myth?

All things will be reveled in Gods time.
We could go for the bigger miracle then there would be no discussions of real proof, what you are saying is don’t look for it, (the evidence), but it is there.
If I follow what you have said then we are at the same place we have been at for centuries.

The evidence I see in this place is special because it lays out side of what they are saying and is preteen in nature and special, untouched and recent in the time scale.
Presenting evidence in favor of the great flood isn’t testing God.

Denial of the evidence that I presented is simply defiance.


To say my evidence supports the scientific community’s view is exactly opposite of what I presented, how you come up with that is comical.

[Correa Neto]

How can Jesus, Sodom and Jericho support the global flood? Its true that these myths happen to be part of a collection of myths and historical accounts named "The Holy Bible". However, evidence say, for the past existence of an excentric rabbi named Jesus, does not validate the flood.

Not to mention that the available pieces of evidence, by no means support the full biblical version (Jesus was the son of a god, Sodom was buried in flames and sulfur by a god and Jericho's walls were brought down by a god while people played trumpets).

Seriously, creationist sites and literature distort and cherry-pick scientific data to fit their views. Some come to a point wich I would labell prostituting of science.

By the way...
How the fishes survived?
Where is the global layer of mixed dead fishes?

[Freethinker]

Then there are the evidences for the reason why and their traces, another thing that the bible mentions the cause of our dilemma, multiple evidence, the Hebrews specifically said the ruins below belonged to one of these… and a king no less.

Can anybody tell me in what language this "proof" is written? A translation into English would be helpful, but I could manage if it were in Spanish as well. As I said, incoherent.

[joobz]

Ya right, unless you were there you really don't know do you Tricky.This statement is an admission of your ignorance regarding scientific analysis.




If you deny the flood then the skeptics can deny Jesus.Actually, skeptics can deny Jesus even without denying the flood.


That there is truth in the myth?There are bits of truth in many myths. That doesn't make the myth and less a myth.

All things will be reveled in Gods time.
We could go for the bigger miracle then there would be no discussions of real proof, what you are saying is don’t look for it, (the evidence), but it is there.
Actually, The point is if you allow for "little miracles" to string to gether your data, you might as well allow for a "big miracle". In other words, the "little micacles" in the realm of science are just as unlikely as the "big miracle". Therefore, to a scientist, the moment you interject the hand of god as a means of explaining away contradictions in the data with your hypothesis is the exact moment you stopped doing science.

If I follow what you have said then we are at the same place we have been at for centuries.exactly. And that is why we had barely any progress until the renaissance, when people stopped using dogma and started to rely on testable evidence based analysis.

The evidence I see in this place is special because it lays out side of what they are saying and is preteen in nature and special, untouched and recent in the time scale.
This makes no sense what so ever.
I know you meant pristine instead of "preteen", but that still doesn't help clarify your point.

Presenting evidence in favor of the great flood isn’t testing God.Then what's it testing?

Denial of the evidence that I presented is simply defiance.No, it's simply logic. You haven't presented evidence.

[Toke]

Egde could reduce the number of problems in creationism with one big miracle.

It is called "Last Thursdayism"

The whole universe was created "insert date" with a lot of geology, old light, and so on, to keep scientist busy.

[Toke]

A few years ago i had a chat with a very nice christian collega, he told me about new jerusalem witch is to be in heaven and 2000km wide, broad, and high.

I told him about air pressure.
1 bar at the top, 1G gravity, you would have very high pressure at street level.

He had never throught of it.
We agreed that since the whole thing was a miracle anyway, the air and all the other practical problems would be fixed by miracle too.

Why can´t creationist do the same?

[Silentknight]

Ya right, unless you were there you really don't know do you Tricky.

There are so many problems with this one statement alone. One does not need to have been present at the time of an event in order to deduce what happened. This is what scientific analysis is for, and is how crimes are solved based on evidence found at the scene. By your logic, we should release all criminals who weren't caught in the act, no matter how heinous their crimes were, because, "Unless you were really there you really don't know." Also, your statement is actually an argument against taking the Genesis account of the flood literally. Moses, who is typically credited with authorship of the Torah (which I will assume for the sake of argument) was not living at the time of the flood either. If you're going to claim that God wrote the bible, and God was there when the flood happened, you'd better be prepared to defend that claim with evidence. But that's a different discussion altogether.

[bobrayner]

A major event happened about 12,000 years ago which could have been the great world wide flood that is spoken about in the bible and through out myths of other cultures.

No. There is geological evidence for very many different floods throughout (geological) history. Some of the floods were very severe. None of them can have matched the flood described in the bible.

At most, a real flood could have been the basis of a story that was subsequently included in the bible. However, this does not mean that the bible is any more than a book of old myths. Most fiction includes references to real concepts. It's quite normal; otherwise the fiction would be barely comprehensible.

I will suggest a specific counterexample: Disney's Pinocchio. It's a classic film. If we pay attention to Pinocchio, we can see that it shows (albeit in a distorted fashion) woodworking, puppets, theate, salt mines, the sea, a whale, and so on. Careful research will find evidence for all these things in the real world, but that does not make Pinocchio into an accurate documentary.

Pinocchio and the bible are interesting pieces of literature in many respects; but they are fiction, and you can't change that by pointing some of the references to real concepts which are commonplace in almost all fiction.

The bible makes some claims that are consistent with real-world evidence. It makes other claims that are not consistent with real-world evidence. Furthermore, some of the bible isn't even internally consistent. So why should anybody trust anything in the bible?

[Tricky]

Ya right, unless you were there you really don't know do you Tricky.
There are many things one can know without being present when they happened. That's what I mean about being a detective. A global flood would leave lots of clues, and the clues simply aren't there.

The evidence I see in this place is special because it lays out side of what they are saying and is preteen in nature and special, untouched and recent in the time scale. opposite of what I presented, how you come up with that is comical.
Preeteen? What in the name of Hokulele's Funbags are you blithering on about. Look, Edge, we all know you are ignorant of geology. There is no need for you to reinforce the point. You have not presented any good evidence. Everything you have presented has been thoroughly explained and it requires no global flood.

Presenting evidence in favor of the great flood isn’t testing God.

Denial of the evidence that I presented is simply defiance.
You evidence hasn't been denied. It has been examined. It turns out, it is bunk, so it is not considered by geologists or other earth scientists. Continuing to rant about how you have good evidence won't change that.

To say my evidence supports the scientific community’s view is exactly opposite of what I presented, how you come up with that is comical.
I challenge you to diagram that sentence. As best I can tell, it says your belief is exactly the opposite of what science shows. You probably didn't mean it to sound that way, but then, coherency is not your strong point either.

[RandFan]

Ya right, unless you were there you really don't know do you Tricky. That's right. If you find a man with a bullet wound to the chest you don't know how he died because you weren't there. It's impossible to solve crimes because we can't use inference and induction to solve problems.

Thanks edge, to hell with reason and logic. Without a first person account we can never know what happened in any circumstance.

If you walk outside one morning and there is snow on the ground you don't know if it snowed because you weren't there.

So toss atomic theory, DNA, Germ Theory, hell toss science all together.

[skeptical]

A few years ago i had a chat with a very nice christian collega, he told me about new jerusalem witch is to be in heaven and 2000km wide, broad, and high.

I told him about air pressure.
1 bar at the top, 1G gravity, you would have very high pressure at street level.

He had never throught of it.
We agreed that since the whole thing was a miracle anyway, the air and all the other practical problems would be fixed by miracle too.

Why can´t creationist do the same?

Because in the real world, people don't like to come out and admit that they don't actually have any good evidence for their beliefs. So, they cherry pick bits and pieces of evidence that they think support the beliefs that they really hold strictly for religious reasons.

Its the perfect plan, because the general populace can't distinguish good evidence from bad, so this methodology can snow most people. When someone who can distinguish good evidence from bad appears to utterly refute them, they always have the last refuge of the scoundrel: it was a miracle! Game, set, match. (apologies to Oscar Wilde for butchering his quote about patriotism)

Its a win/win for them, and too often its effective.