Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: purplemer

Well, it's a start. Shame I can't get to read your link, though.

Works just fine for me. what did you do to it... i will try something else.. brb

a reply to: purplemer

How many of those creation stories and flood myths imply they fully understood the shape and extent of the planet?

You see as far as im aware most of the really ancient creation stories and religious texts.

Including those from various cultures and civilisations you have already mentioned, do not even specifically describe the shape of the Earth because the texts were often written in times when the concept of a spherical Earth was not well understood.

Or anything much further than what could be seen on the horizon really.

Hence their accounts of flooding are not exactly to be taken as worldwide if you think about it.

a reply to: purplemer

Seeing as how Giants never existed, I'll take them with a pinch of salt.

Do you believe in Giants?

Can you explain that?

Probably not.

a reply to: andy06shake

Exactly. "Here be monsters". And so on.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Can you answer the question or are we back to sheep think again.. Why do unrelated cultures have a story of a flood and the eradication of giants.. it could be unicorns but its always giants..

can you explain...

probably not...

group think.. a hard thing to break.

a reply to: purplemer

all the old cultures of the world have a shared memory of the event..

To that, all I have to say is Old Norse Mythology is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than Christianized Norse Mythology.

This site will dechristianize it aptly

Christians tended to rework the Mythology of every culture they encountered. Like how, there is no pictogram, pictographs, or an other indigenous North American evidence to support "The Great Flood" in the myth of tribes like The Hopi or Cherokee before the contact with missionaries.

Everywhere MISSIONARIES went will have "A local flood story", and It will parallel the Christian Narrative.

Is it any wonder this widely used Inca example was brought to us by Catholic Conquistadors?

]"The Inca’s supreme being and creator god, Con Tici (Kon Tiki) Viracocha, first created a race of giants, but they were unruly, so he destroyed them in a mighty flood and turned them to stone. Following the deluge, he created human beings from smaller stones. "In other versions of this story, the impious race is the pre-Inca civilization of the Tiahuanaco Americans about Lake Titicaca, the large high lake in the Andes. Viracocha drowns them and spares two, a man and a woman, to start the human race anew. Some versions of the Unu Pachakuti have the surviving man and woman floating to Lake Titicaca in a wooden box."

Sure it is.

I have always felt this was a huge fallacy in logic that dismisses transculturation. Or Christians outright forcing the Christianization of the local myth.

And so everyone is aware, this is The Vikings "shared" version of the creation/flood myth:

As the frost continued to melt, a cow, Audhumla (“Abundance of Humming”[2]), emerged from it. She nourished Ymir with her milk, and she, in turn, was nourished by salt-licks in the ice. Her licks slowly uncovered Buri (“Progenitor”[3]), the first of the Aesir tribe of gods. Buri had a son named Bor (“Son”[4]), who married Bestla (perhaps “Wife”[5]), the daughter of the giant Bolthorn (“Baleful Thorn”[6]). The half-god, half-giant children of Bor and Bestla were Odin, who became the chief of the Aesir gods, and his two brothers, Vili and Ve.

Odin and his brothers slew Ymir and set about constructing the world from his corpse. They fashioned the oceans from his blood, the soil from his skin and muscles, vegetation from his hair, clouds from his brains, and the sky from his skull. Four dwarves, corresponding to the four cardinal points, held Ymir’s skull aloft above the earth.

I guess the missionaries couldn't do anything with that.

a reply to: andy06shake

What makes you think our teachers didnt know the earth was round.. where do you think 60/12 maths came from.. we would not be measuring the earth without the Sumerians say it was given to them by the gods.. another coincidence mr smith.. the teachers that funny enough can be found again in nearly all old cultures the world over..

mind think is a dangerous thing.

a reply to: purplemer

Post a source that works and I'll have a go.

Meanwhile, how about answering my question about giants? You see, if they aren't real, then neither are your "stories"?

Group think?

No. Long established science and facts.

Group think is believing in fairy stories.

Sources, please?

a reply to: purplemer

What makes you think our teachers didnt know the earth was round

I suggested nothing of the sort only that the concept of a spherical Earth was not well understood, not so much shape and more extent and size.

Never mind trying to educate me purplemer, i probably know all the same to similar stuff as yourself.

Answer the question, please.

How many of those creation stories and flood myths imply they fully understood the shape and extent of the planet?

Tell you one thing, the tale of Noah's Ark whilst not predominately of the creation sorts centrally doesn't tick the box.

And neither does the actual creation tale in the Bible.

Said book dealing mainly with the Middle East and Mesopotamia for the most part.

With no mention of the likes of the Americas, New Zealand, Australia or Antarctica, im sure you can see where I'm going with this, that being geography was not the Bible's strong suit for some very obvious reasons.

a reply to: purplemer

Out of your mind is even more dangerous!

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
I doubt you will get past page 2.
From the source linked:

Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism is a collection of peer-reviewed technical papers which seek to develop and systematize the Creation Model of origins from a young earth perspective.

Here is a choice quote:

The Genesis account, however, stands in stark contrast to all the other renditions. This is in part true because we have more knowledge and understanding about this account, but also because it shows a lack of the corruption found in other creation and flood stories.

a reply to: daskakik

That's all I could read of it but yes, that's who we are dealing with. Beliefs. Bonkers ones, at that.

a reply to: purplemer

"Works just fine for me. what did you do to it... i will try something else.. brb"

I tried to open it? I'll wait.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2



You might like this fellow's take on the matter.

He can come across as rather pretentious but he's on the ball more often than not.

a reply to: andy06shake

Thanks. I'll watch it later. Am a bit crocked with injury at the mo and work is mental!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: daskakik

That's all I could read of it but yes, that's who we are dealing with. Beliefs. Bonkers ones, at that.

It's easy if you try, like Lennon said.

Like you can turn any geology thing into a creationist argument.



Stream offset = 130 meters or 130,000 millimeters

San Andreas Slip = 20 - 35 mm a year.

If you just assume the slip pictured is @ 25 mm/year = 5200 years.

But we need it to be 600 years more.

So we use that The San Andreas slips between 20 and 35 mm, and lower slip rate.

And if we just lie and say 22.4785 mm a year is the slip rate, we can now say it incorporates 5,784 years of slip.

EXACTLY THE AGE OF THE EARTH!

That's how easy it is. Now to debunk that immediately.

This slip isn't continuous. The fault, being a lateral strike-slip spends years at a time "locked up" at the transform boundary, and that's why Earthquakes.

The Creek pictured:

It was once the main creek bed. It flowed straight across the fault around 10,000 years ago but a series of earthquakes every few hundred years offset the channel. Eventually the creek cut through the first bend and separated the offshoot and began carving the modern channel about 3800 years ago.

Slip rates are averages, and the slip rate at this location is 34 mm a year.

a reply to: Degradation33

To that, all I have to say is Old Norse Mythology is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than Christianized Norse Mythology.

This site will dechristianize it aptly

Christians tended to rework the Mythology of every culture they encountered. Like how, there is no pictogram, pictographs, or an other indigenous North American evidence to support "The Great Flood" or tribes like The Hopi or Cherokee existed before the contact with Westerners.

Everywhere MISSIONARIES went will have "A local flood story". It will parallel the Christian Narrative.

Is it any wonder this widely used Inca example was brought to us by Catholic Conquistadors?

You are looking at this totally the wrong around. The old religions came first and it is christiananty that is the bastardization. The copy that hide stuff. the complete arbahamic lineage. not original. The celebration of the king is the same the world over. for example

Very simple to see when you take the trinity. celto /blurry /viking odinic / babalyion /Egyptian and may other use exacly the same type of trinity in very particular way.. Its a fingerprint when you know what you are looking at.

Christanity took that and changed it.. It hide the feminine.. thats the veiled mary (the holy ghost - if what you are saying is true then these should be back peddled into cultural use they are not..

Original trinity.. Always the king (orion) Always the mother god (sirius) always the archytpal mother. and the sun/son The king will always die and go to the other world.

Very evident examples..
kemetic
Osrius (orion) ISIS (sirius) and horus the sun...

babyloin
(Nimrod), (orion) Semiramis (Queen of Heaven) and Tammuz the sun

norse
Odin Orion) Fraiya (sirius Thor the sun..

Now look at christianty ... the trinity is the father..(orion) and the son (sirius and the sun) and the holy ghost.
Very different.. u cant show me this in other cultures. the most imprtant thing in christinaity.. not back peddled,



Unless you can provide evidence those stories are back peedled its an assumption..and the thing is i can provide a load more take some from china if you want.. not many christians in the those parts..

a reply to: purplemer

Incorerency levels reaching critical, Captain, and rising....

a reply to: purplemer

The old religions came first and it is christiananty that is the bastardization.

Yeah, in the beginning, it was about sun worship, not son worship.

Well that, and blood, wind, and fire.

But it does not change the geological, fossil, or lack of other historical records that prove there was no flood of the global sorts.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
Inchorerency levels reaching critical, Captain, and rising....

I wonder if it is just poor reading and comprehension or some form of dyslexia?

To that, all I have to say is Old Norse Mythology is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than Christianized Norse Mythology.

You are looking at this totally the wrong around. The old religions came first and it is christiananty that is the bastardization.

Said basically the same thing but believes they are making a counter-point.

ETA: And who in their right mind links a source that says the christian stories are the most uncorrupted and then calls it a bastardization?