Younger Dryas impact = Biblical Flood

originally posted by: Triton1128
Younger Dryas impact = Inspiration for Epic of Gilgamesh / Biblical Flood Stories

For those that do not know what the Younger Dryas impact event is.. here's a brief explanation :

The general hypothesis states that about 10,900 years ago, air burst's or impact's from a near-Earth object's set areas of the North American continent on fire, disrupted climate and caused the extinction of most of the megafauna in North America and the demise of the North American Clovis culture after the last glacial period. This swarm is hypothesized to have exploded above or possibly on the Laurentide Ice Sheet in the region of the Great Lakes.

Evidence :

The evidence claimed for an impact event includes carbon-rich layers of soil that have been found at some 50 Clovis sites across the continent. The proponents report that layers contain unusual materials (nanodiamonds, metallic microspherules, carbon spherules, magnetic spherules, iridium, charcoal, soot, and fullerenes enriched in helium-3) that they interpret as evidence of an impact event, at the very bottom of black mats of organic material that they say marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas, and claim that this cannot be explained by volcanic, or other natural processes

Now imagine an impact, directly on a 1 to 2 mile thick ICE sheet. Much of that would be instantly liquefied during impact. Sending a raging flash flood down the Mississippi valley and spilling into the gulf of mexico. Sea levels at this time were ALREADY increasing steadily 10ft a century. This catastrophe would only escalate this value, causing a global reaction.

On top of an increasing sea level rise, you now have more water evaporating and being absorbed into the atmosphere, releasing even more CO2 from trapped ice. The more CO2 in the air, the warmer the planet got, the faster ice melted = the faster sea levels would continue to rise.

Now on the other side of the globe. You would see a massive sea level rise and more frequent storms/precipitation. Villages and towns located near the ocean would slowly be consumed or vanish in just years.

This brings us too >>> ( The Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia. )

In the story, Gilgamesh to undertake a long and perilous journey to discover the secret of eternal life. Just as with the story of Noah and the Ark. Here we have a similar story depicting a final flood that consumes the land. Handed down as a punishment from the gods.

IMO, its not had to connect the two together. We have several stories all documenting a massive global flood during a time period where sea levels are rising at a record pace and wiping civilizations off the map.

Keep in mind, this is just a theory of mine, but would like to hear others opinions.

This may be of interest to all...


craterhunter.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: Seede

You have never seen me say that science is evil. What I do say is that people are evil. As far as being ignorant of all sciences I do admit that I do not understand all science and neither do you.

Do I know ALL science? Absolutely not. Do I know the science related to this particular OP? You can bet your ass I do. I actually have degrees in related fields. You on the other hand are taking the word of a man who freely admits he rigged the game to make his own results and a group who was fully funded by AIG without the most miniscule amount of due diligence on your end. It's an intellectually dishonest approach.

There are many avenues in the word science. I did make the remark that peer review was being investigated for fraud and that is a fact. You are not privy to all avenues of peer review and to say otherwise would be false on your part.

But apparently I'm a little more privy to peer review than you are, there are a number of highly reputable journals that are not on a pay system such as Nature for example. There's also PNAS who vets their papers very thoroughly. Those are just a couple. The pay to play journals have only been around for 15 years and amongst legitimate researchers, everyone knows to take the material with a little more than a grain of salt. See, this is the peer review part... publishing in a journal isn't the peer review part...its just step 1. The peer review comes in when others read your work and see if they can come to the same conclusions following your methodology. If you don't know how the system works, you can't actually mock it.

"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" is an article written by Science correspondent John Bohannon that describes his investigation of peer review among fee-charging open access journals. Between January and August 2013, Bohannon submitted fake scientific papers to 304 journals owned by as many fee-charging open access publishers. The papers were designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that it should have been rapidly rejected by editors and peer reviewers, but 60% of the journals accepted it. The article and all of the associated data were published in the 4 October 2013 issue of Science as open access.[2][3]"

Yes, I'm aware of that as are most people. It's not a condemnation of peer review overall though, just a subset of scrupulous journals who are in it for money alone. Look on the bright side, now the staff at AIG can have their work published and call it science!

Shop around and maybe you could get a the right guy for the right buck. That is the good ole boy system and you can spin it any way to suit your own bubble.

As addressed above, while pay journals do exist, they aren't taken very seriously. This is why Bohannon didn't submit to any respected publication. the ruse would have been up rather quickly.

As far as the dating methods used today are, in many scientists minds, accepted but wanting in many respects and you very well know it.

I don't very well know it. You admit in your first paragraph that you don't even understand the science so how can you honestly say that the methods are wanting? Because AIG says so and they're on the side of God? Give some examples of what is wrong with the dating methods and why they are wrong and then there may be a conversation to be had. Otherwise you're just bandying around empty epithets.

You very well know that global warming was debunked and the game changed to climate change. Is that honest science? I expected some type of honesty from you but your God hatred overrides that by far.

No, global warming hasn't been "debunked". Additional data was collected demonstrating a more broad scope to what was going on. That's how science works, it is self correcting. Nothing was debunked. Ironic that you claim I'm being dishonest when that charge suits you far better. I've stated nothing dishonest at all, only facts. You just don't like them because they go against your religious sensibilities. I have no hatred for god, I can't hate something that I don't think about until I come on ATS and it's put in my face as a rebuttal to legitimate science. I could not care less for your god, it doesn't factor into my day to day activities in any way. Your ignorance towards science in general has clouded you far more than anything related to religion could cloud me. Sorry, but you're just wrong in that assessment.

a reply to: Barcs

a reply to: Murgatroid Myths are not hard evidence. Sorry. We know floods happened. None were global regardless of what ancient myth says.

This in itself explains what is wrong with you clubbers.

The name of this forum is Conspiracies in religion and not myths in science. You clubbers insist upon derailing just about every theological discussion in the religious forums and it should be noted by all who wish to abide by the rules on ATS.

Perhaps you need to be reminded that you never contribute but almost always derail and insist upon proof of discussions. You don't get proof in theology and you are not well educated enough to show any educated discussion in biblical theology. Murgatroid was well on target in showing the theological aspects of cultures and it once again shows your own ignorance in theology. This forum is not a secular science center of opinions.

originally posted by: Seede
This in itself explains what is wrong with you clubbers.

The name of this forum is Conspiracies in religion and not myths in science. You clubbers insist upon derailing just about every theological discussion in the religious forums and it should be noted by all who wish to abide by the rules on ATS.

So I should just let you guys post all kind of factually inaccurate statements and fallacies, just because it's in the conspiracies in religion section? You guys hate science, you already posted a tirade about peer review that was downright ridiculous. I'd rather deny ignorance. That's what this website is all about.

He was using ancient myth to support the notion of global flood. I'm not derailing the thread by pointing out that his evidence is completely subjective, and that there is an extreme lack of evidence for global flood. Nobody's denying that the earth flooded in multiple places at various times. They are arguing that a worldwide flood contradicts everything we know about geology and paleontology. This is what many folks are claiming here.

Perhaps you need to be reminded that you never contribute but almost always derail and insist upon proof of discussions.

I almost never contribute? LMAO. I've gone into great detail in many posts breaking down the information for people that have trouble understanding it. Yes, I insist on proof when people say something is a fact. If you don't think global flood is a fact, then don't call it that. Call it a story or a hypothesis or faith and I'd have no problem with it. I only take issue when folks attack science and when folks claim their faith or religion is fact.

You don't get proof in theology and you are not well educated enough to show any educated discussion in biblical theology.

I studied the bible for many years. I don't claim to know as much as the theology experts and bible scholars, but I know a great deal about it and that was my point exactly. Theology is not proof nor is it even evidence. I'm not saying god or any set religion is wrong, I just don't believe in it and folks who call it factual are being dishonest.

Murgatroid was well on target in showing the theological aspects of cultures and it once again shows your own ignorance in theology. This forum is not a secular science center of opinions.

Again, Murgatroid was trying to suggest that a global flood actually happened, but none of that is evidence for a global flood. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that. I never said opinions were not allowed, but the problem is folks presenting their opinions as fact or using fallacies to support it.

Evidence for no global flood,
Atacama desert,

The Atacama Desert may be the oldest desert on earth, and has experienced extreme hyperaridity for at least 3 million years, making it the oldest continuously arid region on earth.

and

Studies by a group of British scientists have suggested that some river beds have been dry for 120,000 years.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Barcs

So I should just let you guys post all kind of factually inaccurate statements and fallacies, just because it's in the conspiracies in religion section? You guys hate science, you already posted a tirade about peer review that was downright ridiculous. I'd rather deny ignorance. That's what this website is all about.

Yes you should. This forum is a religious forum which is based upon theology. Your science should be in the Science and technology forum where they will bury you in about one post. A statement is not inaccurate till proven inaccurate and that is why we call it theology. You seem to have a problem with that word. Actually there is no such thing as factually inaccurate.

No one has ever said they hate science. Science has it's place and is nothing but the laws of God which are now being realized more so than in the past. Your great science created nothing. It simply is trying to figure out what the Creator created. You seem to infer that a scientist is a great god of some sort or greater than any god. A scientist is someone who is taught certain formulas of the laws of God and even at that it is mostly conjecture. Facts today are not facts tomorrow. Oh yes, I remember, we call that change.

By the way here is another shot that you might want to read--
"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: punkinworks10

There was no one world wide epic flood, but a series of lesser ones in the wake of the last ice age, but cataclysmic enough from Harmagheddon back, for let's say the family of Noah who figured they'd build a floating barn and bring all their funny animals with them and prepare to getting away from the Black Sea region and settle down somewhere else, like say repopulate the lands that were wiped off the map.

Evidence for a global event on 4 continents:

The melting of the ice sheets and glaciers in the northern hemisphere would seem like a world wide event to the people that survived,now wouldn't it?



www.pnas.org...

This guys a joker there's plenty of evidence for a cosmic event happening 12,800 years ago.

You simply need to look to see the most recent evidence to support this.

What that event was is whats really up for speculation not weather or not it happened or not.

a reply to: Seede

"Conspiracies in Religions" fits the bill perfectly for debunking religious claims. Afterall, to the non believers, religion is the biggest conspiracy of all time. Of course we can debunk false religious claims in this section.

The folks that derailed this thread by turning it into an "I can prove a worldwide flood 6000 years ago" are the ones to watch out for. That wasn't the purpose of the OP, and it was a productive discussion up until that point. The Op was talking about a different event entirely, that could cause flooding that would seem global to many of the people affected. Too bad the thread got derailed. It's a shame so many people like to hijack threads like this and turn them into their own pulpit to promote their faith.

a reply to: Sunwolf

the obvious rebutal is that none of the myths of a flood include any witness testimony of the actual Y-D event

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Seede

"Conspiracies in Religions" fits the bill perfectly for debunking religious claims. Afterall, to the non believers, religion is the biggest conspiracy of all time. Of course we can debunk false religious claims in this section.

The folks that derailed this thread by turning it into an "I can prove a worldwide flood 6000 years ago" are the ones to watch out for. That wasn't the purpose of the OP, and it was a productive discussion up until that point. The Op was talking about a different event entirely, that could cause flooding that would seem global to many of the people affected. Too bad the thread got derailed. It's a shame so many people like to hijack threads like this and turn them into their own pulpit to promote their faith.

The typical «atheist troller» for lack of better words, believes this is so goddamn streamlined that as long as you use the Bible to prove this or that conspiracy, you believe the world was created 6000 years ago. Bummer. It ain't like that. What happened 6000 years ago was language was created and the Caucasians came around, and the world's first modern civilisations, and the world wide floods that'd been reshaping the map for the last few thousand years ceased. There was no one flood event preceding these events, but a multitude of lesser floods, a 10 000 year long flood season. Some of these floods were small and insignificant, but yet some were rather far-reaching and quite huge. Over a period of a few millennia sea levels rose by more than 120 meters, that's nearly 400 feet of water, and landmasses were reshaped and were lifted up, broken off, Ice carries a bit of weigh, all of this resulting in quite a few pretty heft scenarios as the waters suddenly burst into new areas, like the area which is now the Black Sea, which used to be a wee freshwater pond, and when ice melts in great amounts things often get hairy. That's something to keep in mind.

That's the cold science for you buddy. And the Bible may indeed have been right, only you would have to understand that a word like Eretz doesn't necessarily mean the Earth, it mostly means the Land. And Mayim means Floods or Waters, that's plural for you. So no huge worldwide flood and Noah the only one surviving. There were floods and there were a great deluge that destroyed Noah's land. His eretz.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


so the TL : DR translation =

" biblical literalism is utter twaddle "

yes ?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Good lord man, you're clutching at straws.
I'm going to watch some Rugby now,and that has more meaning than your supposedly-clevery-composed-diatribe. I disagree. Perhaps after the game I will respond in kind....

a reply to: aorAki

The way I see it the Noah tale may indeed be right, only the way these bibles we own are translated, it all gets rather funny really. Noah probably lived in the area which is now the Black Sea. At some point in relatively recent history, the Bosphorus Strait was created and a massive wall of water burst into the Black Sea area from the Mediterranean Ocean, creating the sea we now know as the Black Sea. Until then as far as water was concerned in that area, there were possibly several waterways there, it may have been the Eden area. Adam and Eve weren't the first humans by far. Cain built a city and married outside his family and he feared retaliation from quite a few people. There were plenty humans around when Adam and Eve kicked off. The errors starts to occur when you translate these texts based on 2000 years old hearsay and petty arrogance from a priesthood that has been essentially interested in gold and souls. The Bible may actually be more accurate that we'd like to admit.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


so the TL : DR translation =

" biblical literalism is utter twaddle "

yes ?

Just about right I suppose, yes. Unless of course you would refer to the Hebrew and Greek words and syntax underlying the translated bible texts. There are a few important things you will have to consider when treating a 3000 years old book written in archaic language, copied from copies down the centuries as the papyri and vellum deteriorated. And we must not forget humankind's special ability to screw up on an epic scale. Our bibles are even bigger jokes than our solar system.

it adds credibility to the AA theories. Consider Sitchen's claim that the approach of Nibiru/moons caused the Southern Ice Sheet to break up and cause a worldwide deluge. The Y/D impact could've been from something in orbit around Nibiru impacting that area in Earth's northern hemisphere which (one way or another) caused the southern ice sheet to break up quickly after being weakened by the climate change that was naturally occurring. It would've caused tsunamis coming up from the southern oceans and on top of that the remnants of civilizations along the Eastern American coastline were caused by this.

a reply to: Triton1128

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Just about right I suppose, yes. Unless of course you would refer to the Hebrew and Greek words and syntax underlying the translated bible texts. There are a few important things you will have to consider when treating a 3000 years old book written in archaic language, copied from copies down the centuries as the papyri and vellum deteriorated. And we must not forget humankind's special ability to screw up on an epic scale. Our bibles are even bigger jokes than our solar system.

Somewhat in agreement but have you considered that the oldest Tanakh was the Aleppo Codex of 920 CE and the Leningrad Codex of 1008 CE. These were the oldest till the 1947 CE discovery of the dead sea scrolls. The dead sea scrolls pushed the Aleppo Codex back 1,000 years to about 80 BCE.

Now what is so amazing in this is that the book of Isaiah was found complete in the dead sea scrolls and was amazingly right on target as being accurate. So for 1,000 years the dead sea Isaiah is in agreement with the Tanakh of 930 CE. Now what does this tell us? Well for one thing age has no control of truth. It was proven that the Masoretic text of today is in agreement with the Hebrew text of 2,100 years ago. So the story book is about the same for at least 2,100 years.

Of course I can't say that this is true back to 5,000 years ago but you have to consider that there is that possibility at least. Also I can't say that the Hebrew texts were true even back to 80 BCE but it does bolster my faith that the possibility is on the table. What does this tell me of the flood of Noah? Well that story is pretty much confirmed back to 80 BCE at least.

Now within that story of Noah is the understanding that the antediluvian race lived in a closed environment. As the story goes, when the Creator separated the waters and created the firmament there was left the waters surrounding the earth from the waters on dry ground called seas. So the world was encased in a unknown depth of water which was a greenhouse effect. For about 1,600 years the world was, in effect, a greenhouse closed environment. The universe as we see it today did not exist to them in this era. The earth was watered from the ground water and rain was not known.

Then came the day that the waters which encased the world started to fall upon the earth as rain. The waters fell for forty days and forty nights upon the entire world and the weight of these waters broke the mantels of the world, separated the earth into shelves of continents and created what we see today. This exposed the world to the universe and created an open environment and expanded the earths circumference by about 40 to 50 percent.

That is not the story in the texts. It is a story that I have imagined by reading the story in the texts.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Just about right I suppose, yes. Unless of course you would refer to the Hebrew and Greek words and syntax underlying the translated bible texts. There are a few important things you will have to consider when treating a 3000 years old book written in archaic language, copied from copies down the centuries as the papyri and vellum deteriorated. And we must not forget humankind's special ability to screw up on an epic scale. Our bibles are even bigger jokes than our solar system.

Somewhat in agreement but have you considered that the oldest Tanakh was the Aleppo Codex of 920 CE and the Leningrad Codex of 1008 CE. These were the oldest till the 1947 CE discovery of the dead sea scrolls. The dead sea scrolls pushed the Aleppo Codex back 1,000 years to about 80 BCE.

Firstly, keeping a 30+ volumes continuous text in a single leather-bound codex wasn't the way things were back then. We have plenty old torahs and manuscripts like those discovered at Qumran and others. Ever seen a Torah scroll? They're huge and comes with their own special furniture, and they only cover the Pentateuch. And even so, that's a pretty hi-tech book compared to how things were back in the days of David and Samuel. That's why most texts that has survived from this period were written on clay tablets.

Now what is so amazing in this is that the book of Isaiah was found complete in the dead sea scrolls and was amazingly right on target as being accurate. So for 1,000 years the dead sea Isaiah is in agreement with the Tanakh of 930 CE. Now what does this tell us? Well for one thing age has no control of truth. It was proven that the Masoretic text of today is in agreement with the Hebrew text of 2,100 years ago. So the story book is about the same for at least 2,100 years.

I tend to agree. The skill of the copyists and the quality of their work back then were actually quite good, and for the last hundred or so years there have been more or less consensus on the Hebrew (BHS) and the Greek (NA) standard-texts, and the discoveries made over the last centuries seem to agree, but what the BHS and NA can't solve, the huge critical apparatus developed over the last few centuries containing everything discovered from wee fragments to complete documents— does. That's not really the problem, we can only rely on the copying routines they had as far back as papyrus and vellum lasts, and the critical sciences. Left to themselves these documents turn to dust in less than 1000 years unless they have been stored and preserved properly. The real problems occur when you translate these texts into modern English or any other modern language, Modern Hebrew and Greek included. We simply don't have the words or the lingual mechanisms to properly render the concepts described in the texts. Personally I can never seem to get passed chapter one of Genesis. And did you know that big chunks of the Old Testament is written like songs and poems?

Of course I can't say that this is true back to 5,000 years ago but you have to consider that there is that possibility at least. Also I can't say that the Hebrew texts were true even back to 80 BCE but it does bolster my faith that the possibility is on the table. What does this tell me of the flood of Noah? Well that story is pretty much confirmed back to 80 BCE at least.

The oldest books we have are about Noah, or rather his alter egos. The Epic of Gilgamesh for instance. Atrahasis.

Now within that story of Noah is the understanding that the antediluvian race lived in a closed environment. As the story goes, when the Creator separated the waters and created the firmament there was left the waters surrounding the earth from the waters on dry ground called seas. So the world was encased in a unknown depth of water which was a greenhouse effect. For about 1,600 years the world was, in effect, a greenhouse closed environment. The universe as we see it today did not exist to them in this era. The earth was watered from the ground water and rain was not known.

Then came the day that the waters which encased the world started to fall upon the earth as rain. The waters fell for forty days and forty nights upon the entire world and the weight of these waters broke the mantels of the world, separated the earth into shelves of continents and created what we see today. This exposed the world to the universe and created an open environment and expanded the earths circumference by about 40 to 50 percent.

That is not the story in the texts. It is a story that I have imagined by reading the story in the texts.

It's not always like it is in the books.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The Noah tale could very well be based on a true story, just heavily exaggerated. I pretty much agree with everything you said, except for the fact that it was never the entire world flooded at once. The glacial period ended. There were tons of isolated floods, and I do think there was a cosmic event 7000-8000 years ago, leading to even more flooding events. It just wasn't the entire world covered by water to the extent the story describes.