Noah's Flood Actually a Worldwide Mega Tsunami

Not this one again, please.

There is no evidence in the geological record to show that a global flood ever occurred. If any disagree, please provide proper geological evidence.

There is no evidence of a tectonic pole shift event in the geological record (different to magnetic pole shifts, which are regularly recorded in the geological record). As above, if any disagree then please provide evidence.

Finally, concerning ice melt at the end of the last age causing a mega global flood. According to the experts at places such as Woods Hole, etc, there is no single ice age melt affecting global sea level rise. Glaciers melted at different rates in the same regions, let alone on a global scale. For example, the Baltic Sea Region alone had at least 3 pulse water events over at least a 10'000 year period. This is evidenced in sediment deposits, ancient submerged shorelines, etc. Whilst sea levels were found to be rising in ancient Caribbean shorelines, they were stable in other parts of the world in the same period of time. The evidence goes on and on............

How many times does this ludicrous claim need to be debunked before people start ignoring it?

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

So this massive worldwide "Noah's Flood" caused by a global tsunami only flooded coastal settlements that have since been unundated by rising sea levels, and most folk were unaffacted? And all geological evidence for it has been lost under the wave?

edit on 5-12-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

I believe, back then, the major civilizations were on the coast due to ease of shipping, food sources, etc. It wasnt like today where people live "everywhere". Sure, I suppose there were higher elevation societies in existence, but after the major suppliers were destroyed, these societies diminished, and disbanded. No support system any longer. Plus, there is another possibility in that the rains were even too much for them to handle. No crops for 1 or two years and they would be finished, as a society.

The problem though is that archeology tends to show that the earlier civilizations were more river valley based than coastal based.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
There are many myths about wars, from different culture all over the world. Do they all refer to the same one?

If there was a global tsunami/flood, who cleared up all the geological evidence? God?

For example, the 'small' tsunami caused by the Storegga Slide is well recorded in the geological data from Scotland and elsewhere in Britain (it only flooded some low-lying coastal regions and Doggerland).

With all the structures and settlements being found under the ocean, not far from land, it makes me wonder.

If there was a global tsunami/flood, who cleared up all the geological evidence? God?

It seems the evidence is being rediscovered.

And if these rediscovered settlements were built on dry land originally, and now under water, that would tell me, somehow additional water was added to the flood/Tsunami mix. Certainly if you were to add vast amounts of water to the ocean in a small amount of time you would get waves that would wash over the land causing wide spread flooding, until the water stabilized into its new shore line, which would be higher than the original, and now covering anything built. But this is exactly what we see.

The melting of the ice sheets would cause this, especially if a lot of water entered the Atlantic at once, as it would if an ice dam collapsed. There's a book called "Noah's Flood" by Pitman and Ryan that details the rising sea levels and the opening of the Bosphorus Strait via the Med...with all that water pouring into the Black Sea.

Sea level was 300 feet lower during the Ice Age. Any towns or settlements built on the coasts would now be under water.

Just because we can not comprehend the vastness or technical expertise required to bring this amount of water to our planet, does not mean it could not be done. Science now says Mars had water. Where did it go?

It evaporated. Once Mars lost its magnetic field and most of its atmosphere (and its atmospheric pressure), it couldn't hang onto the water.

reply to post by HappyBunny

I understand your point about magnetic field, but....
kendalastronomer.wordpress.com...

for some strange reason its just not logical to me. Besides even the more honest Scientists admit, the magnetic field and gravity are theories and not completely understood at their core. Try and forgive my country bumpkin mentality on this point.

It seems to me that a planets magnetic field more closely aligned to its radiation belt, than to its interior components.

kendalastronomer.wordpress.com...

In either case, the atmosphere, and the lack of Mars atmosphere, is highly debatable.

Added:

A added point.

Generally we are a species, and a reality for me is, a lost species, who wakes up one day and become self aware. So much of our ancient past has been wiped from our collective memories either through malice of intent or through natural disasters, or a mixer of the two. How on earth we can proclaim anything to be real or factual when we are missing such a large portion of our history, is absolutely beyond me. How you can build the house of science without a firm basis of knowledge from our past is at best, a dis-service to mankind. Yes, we seem to build theoretically assumed building blocks to take the place of solid knowledge, but we will assuredly get into trouble when we forget they are just assumptions. How many times have we already had to backtrack when we assumed the theory of a flat earth, or the Sun rotates around the earth, were found to be incorrect when new evidence dispelled them. We, our science, can not know where we are going, until we know where we have been. That, is just a fact.

So please when you use the words "Magnetism" "Gravity" "Planetary Mechanics", please include the word "Theory" .

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Something else I recall reading about the subject is that, it was reported that there was no Moon before the flood.

The Moon has been around for 4.5 billion years. Without we wouldn't be here.

Science or religion. Your choice.

Edit: and there has never been any occasion in human history when everyone lived in coastal locations. Regardless of which, the there is more evidence that Rome was built by reptiloids using lego bricks than there is of a global flood in recent geological time. That's fact. Facts sometimes are inconvenient.

reply to post by AndyMayhew

The Moon has been around for 4.5 billion years. Without we wouldn't be here.

Granted, the Moon may in fact be that old, but, it does not in any way prove it spent all that time circling our planet.

Without it we wouldn't be here

Assumption?

Science or religion. Your choice.

I do not practice or believe religion is based in any logical or realistic historical fact. But I do believe it has been used to control the masses, and their minds. But in saying that, I also believe historical writings in the form of scriptures have been hijacked by unscrupulous powers to undermine the messages contained within, and distort the content there of. There need not be a choice involved between the two. Take what is logical and truthful from both, and leave the garbage on the side of the road. That is your real choice.

and there has never been any occasion in human history when everyone lived in coastal locations.

Your proof of this? I myself happen to agree with you on this point, my comment was "Majority", not all.

Facts sometimes are inconvenient.

They sure are! Especially to those who intentionally bury them. Understand, this is not a indictment of yourself, just a general observation.

A subject that is closely related to the Biblical flood stories is that of the Giants.

In the book of Genesis we read the blunt, categorical statement: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God [angels] saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . .There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men [had sexual relations with them], that they bare CHILDREN to them, the same became MIGHTY MEN which were of old, men of renown" (Gen.6:1-4).

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that

After that, being the flood. It also could imply that the race of Giants were not wiped out, completely, and they could also be here today, in a undisclosed location.

Should we discredit this entire story because some religious factions decided to use the materials for their own advantages? Or are we not allowed to view the original materials with a honest and open mind.

What if there is one small shred of truth found in this story? The implications are quite earth shattering to say the least. Humanity with all its societies, sciences, morals, and ideologies, would start over at day one, literally! And this is where I leave the door open to possibilities, not because of any religious dogmas.

In science we were mislead into believing that all mammalian life forms during the prehistoric times were small and insignificant, where as all the reptilian life forms were huge, gigantic. We now know many mammals were in fact huge as well. Saber tooth tiger, giant sloth, etc.

The mammals of the Mesozoic Era were small, quivering creatures that kept well out of the way of dinosaurs by living high up in trees--but not so their successors of the Cenozoic, which were free to evolve into giant sizes and fill the ecological niches left open by the extinction of the dinosaurs. Here's a list of the 10 most notable giant mammals that succeeded the dinosaurs.

dinosaurs.about.com...

It appears that the mechanization that allowed the Dinosaurs to achieve great size compared to today, was also at work and available to the mammals. In other words, If there was a prehistoric species of human, it too would be of immense, gigantic size. So it is at least possible that giant humans could have existed, just as the biblical story indicates.

There is a quote from a movie I would like to take some Artistic license with. In "V For Vendetta" it was said "Artisans lie to tell the truth, Politicians lie to hide the truth". I would say in this particular case of the flood "Myths and fairy tales lie to tell the truth, And religious leaders lie, to hide it".

Remove all the religious overtones involved with ancient scriptures and what you have is a story of a power struggle that occurred, in ancient societies. Water may have been used as a weapon in some form, over a period of time. And we all know power struggles are not fictitious in any manner, nor, is water.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I understand your point about magnetic field, but....
kendalastronomer.wordpress.com...

for some strange reason its just not logical to me. Besides even the more honest Scientists admit, the magnetic field and gravity are theories and not completely understood at their core. Try and forgive my country bumpkin mentality on this point.

It seems to me that a planets magnetic field more closely aligned to its radiation belt, than to its interior components.

kendalastronomer.wordpress.com...

In either case, the atmosphere, and the lack of Mars atmosphere, is highly debatable.

It is highly debatable, you're right, and may not be necessary for an atmosphere--gravity may be more important. Mars has 0.38 Earth's gravity because it's so much smaller. Its mean density is also very low. Conversely, look at Venus. It's the size of Earth and has no magnetic field (it has an induced magnetosphere and magnetotail), yet it's atmosphere is much, much more dense than Earth's.

Mars actually does have a magnetic field. It's just very weak, something like 10~ -4 of Earth's.

www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu...

However, what isn't in doubt is that Mars once did have liquid water on the surface (and may still have pockets of it here and there where the triple point is sufficient to sustain it). That implies a sufficient atmospheric pressure to sustain it for a long time.

The question is: what happened to Mars that it lost the ability to hold onto its atmosphere? Was it just a rapid cooling that led to a loss of convection and with it the loss of the magnetic field? The law of partial pressures says that the lightest gases would be lost first.

Asteroids/comets? Some other cause? Nobody knows.

Added:

A added point.

Generally we are a species, and a reality for me is, a lost species, who wakes up one day and become self aware. So much of our ancient past has been wiped from our collective memories either through malice of intent or through natural disasters, or a mixer of the two. How on earth we can proclaim anything to be real or factual when we are missing such a large portion of our history, is absolutely beyond me. How you can build the house of science without a firm basis of knowledge from our past is at best, a dis-service to mankind. Yes, we seem to build theoretically assumed building blocks to take the place of solid knowledge, but we will assuredly get into trouble when we forget they are just assumptions. How many times have we already had to backtrack when we assumed the theory of a flat earth, or the Sun rotates around the earth, were found to be incorrect when new evidence dispelled them. We, our science, can not know where we are going, until we know where we have been. That, is just a fact.

That doesn't mean it's wrong, though. For every time we've had to backtrack, how often have we scored a bullseye? Would we have been able to send people to the Moon if we'd been wrong? Or probes to every planet in the solar system?

Just because we don't know everything is not a good reason to says "it's all wrong." Science is a process, not an end result.

So please when you use the words "Magnetism" "Gravity" "Planetary Mechanics", please include the word "Theory" .

edit on 6-12-2012 by All Seeing Eye because: (no reason given)

Gravity is just a theory. So is relativity. And yet, very few people doubt them.

You can't ever prove a theory 100% right--all you can do is prove it wrong. That's the reason they're still called "theories". It doesn't mean they're wrong.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye


It appears that the mechanization that allowed the Dinosaurs to achieve great size compared to today, was also at work and available to the mammals. In other words, If there was a prehistoric species of human, it too would be of immense, gigantic size. So it is at least possible that giant humans could have existed, just as the biblical story indicates.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. About as wrong as you can get, in fact. See, there's this thing called the square cube law. Giant humans of the size you're talking about are not physiologically possible. Dinosaurs had an entirely different physiology from any type of mammal, much less a primate like us. In fact, many modern birds evolved directly from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs evolved their physiology in response to their environment...and so did we.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

The Moon has been around for 4.5 billion years. Without we wouldn't be here.

Granted, the Moon may in fact be that old, but, it does not in any way prove it spent all that time circling our planet.

Without it we wouldn't be here

Assumption?

It's called the conservation of angular momentum. Go look it up.

Science or religion. Your choice.

I do not practice or believe religion is based in any logical or realistic historical fact. But I do believe it has been used to control the masses, and their minds.

Yeah, like yours.

Originally posted by winterkill
How about the summarian stuff was written after Noah's account. Dating methods are highly flawed.
You might also notice that the description of the Ark in Noah could actually withstand such an event, and the restored version describes a more scientifically plausible event.
An asteroid impact in the oceans would actually have the ability to cause just such an event worldwide, but pole flips would cause and ongoing water event.

edit on 3-12-2012 by winterkill because: added material

An asteroid impact able to create a world wide flood would have also created a worldwide fire storm, burning everything not soaked by the flood. As in death of the dinosaur's.

Originally posted by pikestaff

Originally posted by winterkill
How about the summarian stuff was written after Noah's account. Dating methods are highly flawed.
You might also notice that the description of the Ark in Noah could actually withstand such an event, and the restored version describes a more scientifically plausible event.
An asteroid impact in the oceans would actually have the ability to cause just such an event worldwide, but pole flips would cause and ongoing water event.

edit on 3-12-2012 by winterkill because: added material

An asteroid impact able to create a world wide flood would have also created a worldwide fire storm, burning everything not soaked by the flood. As in death of the dinosaur's.

And destroyed the ozone layer.

Imagine all that burning biomass. And we'd probably still be feeling the effects of it if it was that recent.

an ocean impact would not create a firestorm.

The people writing it had no way of knowing what was happening around the world. A regional natural disaster can easily be mistaken for a global one when you are ignorant provincial people with no concept of how big the world truly is.

I suspect thats more likely the seed of truth in it.

Originally posted by justwokeup
The people writing it had no way of knowing what was happening around the world. A regional natural disaster can easily be mistaken for a global one when you are ignorant provincial people with no concept of how big the world truly is.

I suspect thats more likely the seed of truth in it.

edit on 7-12-2012 by justwokeup because: typo

Start with reading graham hancock'fingerprints of the gods' and go from there.
I found it a good start point,trouble is after that its just more questions.
Fun trip though



seems there's 'some' evidence that they knew the size and shape of the planet


covers the flood stories aswell

Originally posted by winterkill
an ocean impact would not create a firestorm.

If the impactor is large enough, it most certainly would as it entered the Earth's atmosphere. Oxygen is an accelerator, you know. The temperature of the air in front of the comet would be thousands of degrees--imagine the space shuttle entering Earth's atmosphere at 30,000 km/hr. It would incinerate everything around it. Even airbursts can be quite devastating.

If you want proof, look up Tunguska--and that was a 70m wide bolide. Or SL-9, and see what it did to Jupiter.

An ocean impact would be much more devastating than a land impact. And because the Earth is 70% ocean, that's more likely.

Can you say, "coo coo"

Guys, the last real ice age ended during this era. Glaciers melting at an accelerated rate = mass flooding on land.

No "earth flipping" need be, and it just makes you sound foolish.

The water stored in the caps melted, and incredible floods washed away the shores where prior civilizations were kept.

After the event, people wrote about it. It's just intelligent for us to record major events. Over time, they evolve from pure anecdotal report to include a whole lot of phooey for whatever various agendas existed of people in positions of high influence from the time of the event until today.

Every generation brings about the ability to reshape history as the rulers see fit. This most certainly happened with the bible, time and time again.

Just work it back, and stick with what makes sense. The caps melted, and a great flood wiped out a lot of people. End of story.

reply to post by unityemissions


Totally true but the key point is that it didn't all happen at once and the sedimentary evidence, geological evidence, etc, backs this all up.

Or, in other words, there was no single world wide flood. It simply didn't happen in that way. At the end of the day, people can believe whatever they like. For me, i believe the evidence. If our understanding of it changes over the years (as often happens with science) then my understanding will also change. But, based on current evidence, it simply did not happen.

Aside from geology, etc, people only have to look at the submerged shorelines globally to see this myth is just that - a myth.

reply to post by Flavian


It didn't have to happen all at once for people to believe it happened all over the world, because it happened all over their world.

While it didn't happen all at once, massive chunks certainly did dislocate from shelves and cause massive flooding to specific coastal areas which wiped most of the people out. I'm sure these events happened in great enough numbers to wipe out most of the coastal civilizations of the time.

In hindsight, because we're dealing with eras of history here, and regions which didn't communicate (or so we're taught), it seems to be just one event, while it's likely to be several chunks breaking off from different regions of the poles, and effecting different coastlines around the world.

Did I explain that sufficiently?

reply to post by unityemissions


I totally understand your point and, to an extent, agree with it.

However, we have to consider that while the Baltic Sea region was suffering a fresh water pulse event (one of several), levels were stable in the Mediterranean. It is entirely feasable that people from these differing regions were aware of the existence of the other (through intermediary groups, ie wandering traders, etc), even if they didn't have any direct contact. Therefore, to an extent, they would have known that the world hadn't ended through flooding.

reply to post by Flavian


Okay, so did these groups who seemed to have interacted specifically mention a flooding event in their myths which was global/world-wide, or was that only entertained by the groups in isolation?