"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

reply to post by OhZone


That whole article is full of faulty pseudo-science...

Analysis of evidence for the kind of world that existed before the 'Deluge' indicates a far more genial climate than exists today, with luxuriant plant growth even in areas which are now decidedly polar. Such conditions could only have existed if Earth had previously rotated more slowly and around a more perpendicular axis than today, with days being longer and the seasons largely undifferentiated.

Actually, we know historical weather for thousands of years back, and there were always hot and cold periods. However, this has nothing to do with the earth rotating more slowly (LOL) or on a different axis. Weather pattern change all the time and trying to explain them with pseudo-science like they do just to make "creationism fit" is laughable...

reply to post by thedeadtruth


imagine the fishing he could have done!!!!

seriously, food/water for the animals and people for 40 days/40 nights - even by today's standards it cannot be done...

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Actually, we know historical weather for thousands of years back....

so we have recorded history of weather dating thousands of years back? got links? what was the weather like in texas when geebus got crucimified?

Originally posted by I.C. Weiner

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Actually, we know historical weather for thousands of years back....

so we have recorded history of weather dating thousands of years back? got links? what was the weather like in texas when geebus got crucimified?

Sure I got links

Historical weather record of the past 740,000 (!!!!) years: LINK

reply to post by MrXYZ


seriously, a link to weather reports from 740,000 yrs ago? who wrote them 740,000 yrs ago? does the vatican know about this?!?!?!?

Originally posted by I.C. Weiner
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

seriously, a link to weather reports from 740,000 yrs ago? who wrote them 740,000 yrs ago? does the vatican know about this?!?!?!?

Given that the vatican publicly acknowledges the theory of evolution, there's a chance they also looked into this. Not sure if they accept it though, but it's kinda hard to argue with facts as they found out with evolution

reply to post by MrXYZ

Either way, the thing that proves that a global flood didn't happen is that there is ZERO sediment evidence. A global flood would leave some sediments as evidence...but there's none

Zero?

Ever hear of a Seamount?

A seamount is a mountain rising from the ocean seafloor that does not reach to the water's surface

Seamount

How about a Guyot?

A guyot /ˈɡiːjoʊ/, also known as a tablemount, is an isolated underwater volcanic mountain (seamount), with a flat top over 200 meters (660 feet) below the surface of the sea.

Notice the Guyot has a flat top.

Their flatness is due to erosion by waves, winds, and atmospheric processes.

Guyot

The flat tops were caused by waves.............

Did those underwater formations look familiar?








No sediment evidence?

In the summer of 1922, and for the next seven years, Bretz conducted field research of the Columbia River Plateau. He had been interested in unusual erosion features in the area since 1910 after seeing a newly published topographic map of the Potholes Cataract. Bretz coined the term Channeled Scablands in 1923 to describe the area near the Grand Coulee, where massive erosion had cut through basalt deposits. The area was a desert, but Bretz's theories required cataclysmic water flows to form the landscape, for which Bretz coined the term Spokane Floods in a 1925 publication.

Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This view, which was seen as arguing for a Catastrophic explanation of the geology, was against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his insights were also vindicated.

J Harlen Bretz

reply to post by dusty1


Once again you take LOCALIZED events and then pretend this applies to the whole planet. One site in Columbia doesn't mean the same happened all over the world, in fact, we know it didn't given the geological evidence.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Once again you take LOCALIZED events and then pretend this applies to the whole planet. One site in Columbia doesn't mean the same happened all over the world, in fact, we know it didn't given the geological evidence.

The article wasn't talking about Columbia.

Seamounts are not localized.

How about planation geomorphology?

Another major figure in the modern formulation of ideas on landscape evolution was the South African geomorphologist Lester C. King (1907–1989). Imbued with Davisian ideas and the triad of process, time and structure, as a graduate student of Charles Cotton (1885–1970) in New Zealand, King nevertheless went on to challenge much of Davisian theory. While still invoking the cyclic concept, like Penck he emphasized the importance of surficial processes, particularly in relation to the role of scarp retreat and pediment formation, and the considerable antiquity (e.g. Cretaceous) of some erosion surfaces. Given the structure of his adopted homeland in Africa, with its extensive flat-lying strata and thus many potential cap rocks, it is not surprising that King interpreted landscapes primarily in terms of scarp recession with consistency of slope form and inclination in any area and structural setting indicating parallel retreat. He thought that steep slopes are shaped by gravity and turbulent water flow (e.g. in gullying), whereas pediments, the typical landform of erosional plains, are the result of surface water flow (sheet wash), capable of transporting sediment and ‘smoothing’ the bedrock (King 1953). Pediments or pediplains persisted until another cycle of river incision or change in base level occurs, causing further slope retreat. Thus, although King concluded that the evolution of landscapes by the action of running water would occur everywhere, except in glacial and desert areas, his ideas stemmed from observations in a semi-arid South Africa with limited river action, where weathering and rockfall predominate, and where scarp retreat, which occurs everywhere, is closely linked to pedimentation, which is of limited importance.

Link

Lester Charles King

Planation

It it the meaning, the mode of origin and age range of their formation which reamains contentious and, paradoxically underresearched isssues

Link

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


How about the fact that a "Silly Flood Story", known as a Deluge, has been traced back through almost every civilization known to man? Sure you can take the Biblical account and poke at it, but let's see you do that to the hundreds or maybe even thousands of other stories which basically tell the same thing.

No logical analysis is going to explain that well enough for me to call it "silly".

PS- the site posted by the OP can hardly be called a "credible source". the page isn't even there anymore and the logic is lacking... skepticreport? right...

Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

How about the fact that a "Silly Flood Story", known as a Deluge, has been traced back through almost every civilization known to man? Sure you can take the Biblical account and poke at it, but let's see you do that to the hundreds or maybe even thousands of other stories which basically tell the same thing.

No logical analysis is going to explain that well enough for me to call it "silly".

Of course it can be traced back to tons of different cultures as floods happen all over the world...that doesn't mean there was a GLOBAL flood though. And underwater mountains and stone formations formed by water aren't exactly proof of a global flood...and like has been mentioned before, if there really was such a thing as a global flood, we'd find CONSISTENT UNIFORM sediment evidence all over the world. What has been posted so far is nothing but individual formations spread out.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

How about the fact that a "Silly Flood Story", known as a Deluge, has been traced back through almost every civilization known to man? Sure you can take the Biblical account and poke at it, but let's see you do that to the hundreds or maybe even thousands of other stories which basically tell the same thing.

No logical analysis is going to explain that well enough for me to call it "silly".

Of course it can be traced back to tons of different cultures as floods happen all over the world...that doesn't mean there was a GLOBAL flood though. And underwater mountains and stone formations formed by water aren't exactly proof of a global flood...and like has been mentioned before, if there really was such a thing as a global flood, we'd find CONSISTENT UNIFORM sediment evidence all over the world. What has been posted so far is nothing but individual formations spread out.

Different civilizations didn't just talk about "floods". They all talked about one HUGE, very important flood. Not just a flood, but details as to people who built an "ark", "ship", or whatever the culture called it to survive the flood. Not only is the story itself consistent throughout the world (before global communication mind you), but as far as uniform sediment, WE HAVEN'T DUG DEEP ENOUGH!

We have no idea what really lies in the Earth's sediment because in the large scope of things, we've barely broken through the crust! Not to mention our lack of knowledge about what lies in the sea and on the seafloor.

So like I said, this logic cannot convince me compared to the "coincidences" unproven. And I am not a fundamentalist, so we can leave that straw man in the field.

reply to post by prepared4truth


Mate, I'm not sure where you're getting your "information", but if you think we don't have all the facts about sediments, you're wrong. Hell, we can even examine it and tell you the weather from over 740,000 years ago!!!

In no way do we have any historical evidence that would back up a GLOBAL flood. YES, there were large floods, just like the ones we have today...but they didn't all happen at the same time. The Egyptians for example speak of a giant flood...and then people in the Middle Ages, and before that the Romans. NOT all simultaneously...you claiming we have proof for a global flood is kind of silly.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by prepared4truth

 

Mate, I'm not sure where you're getting your "information", but if you think we don't have all the facts about sediments, you're wrong. Hell, we can even examine it and tell you the weather from over 740,000 years ago!!!

In no way do we have any historical evidence that would back up a GLOBAL flood. YES, there were large floods, just like the ones we have today...but they didn't all happen at the same time. The Egyptians for example speak of a giant flood...and then people in the Middle Ages, and before that the Romans. NOT all simultaneously...you claiming we have proof for a global flood is kind of silly.

We Haven't Been ANYWHERE into Sediment

A quick Google search would've helped you out, but I've got ya covered. We can only dig 20 km into Earth, which is over 6,300 km deep. Also, we can tell weather at specific dates but:

1. The dating process is inaccurate.

2. That STILL doesn't mean anything concerning what has happened. Earth is very old, and digging into 20 km of sediment reveals nothing.

3. Even though cultures didn't come up with stories simultaneously, they were still on different continents and overseas, WAY before methods of travel were invented which would have let them meet each other. Time is irrelevant when talking about a uniform story being told in THIS many ancient cultures.

So actually, you claiming we didn't have a global flood from a standpoint that is clearly lacking in knowledge, is even sillier.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Los Angeles here. After this last two weeks I kind of believe the flood story now.

Originally posted by ..5..
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Los Angeles here. After this last two weeks

I kind of believe the flood story now.

So just because you're suffering from way too much rain (sry for that btw, got tons of friends around LA/Pasadena and they aren't happy) you conclude that a GLOBAL flood definitely happened?? You make some HUGE leaps of faith, especially given the lack of concrete evidence supporting that silly flood hypothesis.

reply to post by MrXYZ


How about rounded boulders?

What would cause rocks to take that shape? They would literally have to roll to become rounded.




These formations are found all over the earth.












The rocks rolled, to me it makes good, good sense........

Take a look at the elongated lakes of Alaska. Strafed by cosmic debris.

www.lat-long.com...

And there are the Carolina bays.

"According to them, this was not a mere "single event" occurence. The initial impact was followed by environmental catastrophes (enormous fires, volcanic eruptions, massive weather changes) lasting for years, which may have been precipitated by the fragmentation of the main body. ("Mammoth Mystery" TV presentation on National Geographic Explorer, 10 October 2007.) Ice core samples taken by the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) indicate that a massive volcanic event also occurred about this same time."

www.atlantisquest.com...

reply to post by prepared4truth

Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

How about the fact that a "Silly Flood Story", known as a Deluge, has been traced back through almost every civilization known to man?

And yet has not a single piece of physical evidence?

Please, read up on the studies of mythology by Joseph Campbell.There are recurring themes in all mythologies, but this is no reason to take them seriously.

And it hasn't. Indigenous Maltese culture doesn't have a deluge story (and we're in the middle of the damn Mediterranean!). That's just one example.

Sure you can take the Biblical account and poke at it, but let's see you do that to the hundreds or maybe even thousands of other stories which basically tell the same thing.

Please show me that these stories all tell the same basic story. Most flood myths don't account for global flooding, have different timeframes, etc.

Of course it still lacks physical evidence, which we should find from a global cataclysm.

No logical analysis is going to explain that well enough for me to call it "silly".

Um...yes. They're mythological stories. Are we to take that the Earth is flat because so many cultures used to believe that? Are we to take that the Earth is at the center of the universe because nearly all mythologies believed that.

Basically all cultures share common themes. Most cultures experienced floods, so they made epic flood stories. Occam's razor.

PS- the site posted by the OP can hardly be called a "credible source". the page isn't even there anymore and the logic is lacking... skepticreport?

right...

This thread is ollllllld. You can't defame the OP when you haven't looked at it because it's a skeptical source.



Now, you later claim that dating methods aren't accurate.That claim is full of poop. Please demonstrate that they aren't accurate.

And you also claim we can't dig more than 20km into the Earth...that's still wayyy back. That's hundreds of millions of years of geologic information. That's many times the history of humanity.

reply to post by dusty1


We actually know very well how rocks turn round. And in case you're wondering, they're often rolling down in deep water...or being rolled by moving glaciers. That's why most of the rocks are somewhat round.

I did a 65m dive to a sunken WW2 boat in Southern France, and there was this really weird "clicking" noise...we found out it was hundreds of thousands of small stones being rolled along the seabed by the current.

Either way, I don't see your point. Are you claiming the only possibility stones can become round is a global flood?