Tackling the flood!

Hi guys,

I wanted to get your guys and girls opinion and maybe use the resources of ATS to get some more or less definite answers.

I would like to discuss the biblical flood and the chances of it having happened. I apologize if this has been done before, or if this should be in another forum.

What I DO want to achieve here is not a religion VS science debate, but rather focus on one event alone, the flood. I think this point makes sense because this is something that we SHOULD be able to rationally analyze and get to a verdict.

I am talking about sediment analysis, fossil records, historical documents that corroborate each other and pretty much everything else that comes to mind.

Obviously, two sides will be formed rather quickly, the one pro and the one contra. I would really like to keep this factual though! And try to leave religion itself out of it please.

I myself have not really looked into it in much detail, although I have heard before that the facts do not seem to support the biblical story.

Anyway, to start things off, I have two links for you guys!

1: "Problems with a global flood"

www.talkorigins.org...

2: "Evidence for a global flood"

unmaskingevolution.com...

I sincerely hope for a calm and reasonable discussion and for a more or less safe verdict which is based on fact and reason.

Thank you for your time.

Nightaudit aka Alex

simple when the last ice age melted around 12,000 years ago , ocean levels went up ,

also in land there would be massive ice dams once those broke they would seen a massive amount of water down the land , ever watch this movie ... same concept


look at the scablands in the usa from the melt of the last ice age notice how much it carved out that land one one rush of water several hundred meters high research it yourselves this just a starting point

but to people living around where the biblical stuff was happening they really had no idea what was about to happen , and like many things when humans dont under stand something they were the works of gods

ETA if it was described really happened and the entire earth was flooded like how it was written , where did all that water go ???

Also take into consideration that with massive melt-off, you have massive evaporation, massive clouds, and massive rain... perhaps 40 days and 40 nights worth of torrential downpour. The clouds, being laden with water, would get dragged across mountain peaks, causing most to be released at higher altitudes. Gravity does it's job, and all that water drains to lower laying valleys, causing massive flooding.

Your correct, two sides will form in this debate. And again I believe you will find the answer when both sides agree to work together rather than to be "Pig Headed" and stand on what they were taught to believe.

I have researched much on the subject and some of my conclusions are that the Earth has had "Global" flooding in the past. And contrary to the Bible, it has happened a few times in the past. The major problem with the global flood theory is that no one can "Decide" where all this flood water came from. It is obvious to the untrained eye that with all the new Underwater Archaeology that is being discovered, there was a civilization that was buried by water. And the sites are global.

www.google.com...:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=fi refox-a&hs=vpW&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&q=underwater+archaeological+sites&spell=1&sa=X&ei=w0RgUY6QLofiiALfo4D4DQ&ved=0CDEQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_q f.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.cGE&fp=248c264d06671336&biw=1527&bih=736

reply to post by Nightaudit


Flood came before the fall of the Tower of Babel.

Edit to spell it out:

Flood could have been localized, as all people were one tribe, until after the tower of babel event happened. The event, of course, was God destroyed the tower, and separated the people to different lands, and confused their languages.

i.e. most cultures have an ancient flood myth because all cultures were one before the babel event.

[removed an obvious error that was here]

All land was in one place...supported by current observation...

No mountains...supported by known fact...

All water is still here...supported by observation...

reply to post by totallackey


That's a good point. If there were mountains before and after the flood then the separation of the land came before the separation of people. That part didn't even occur to me.

reply to post by Bleeeeep
Yes, the expanding earth theory does in fact show how the water made the globe react. It turned a solid planet (Firmament) into a big mud puddle, for lack of better terms. The planet turns to mush in the evolving ocean beds, the beds are squeezed by the weight of the water, the ocean beds expand and put pressure on the land masses. The Land masses fracture along the coast lines and pressure ridges form (Mountain Ranges). As a result, internal forces push back, and the planet responds by Expanding.

Continents appear to be floating about the globe on plates, but its the lower crust that is actually rebuffing the weight acting like a anvil, of the water acting like a hammer, causing the expansion of the outer crust, or ocean beds. The lower crust must also give way to the weight and fracture in places, we call this process, earth quakes.

Earth Quakes are actually proof of The Expanding Earth. All brought on by the Hydrological effects of excess water weight. But of course all this can not "happen" on a solid ball of rock, or even one filled with molten rock or metal. A solid sphere can not expand because of the self induced vacuum it would cause internally. So comes the quagmire of the Theory.

So we are left with, the earth is expanding, or it isn't. If it is, then the center of the Earth must have a material that is much less dense and susceptible to negative pressure that would allow the crust to expand..

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


I was considering use of the expanding earth theory to explain away the bering strait land bridge theory; but I realized the land separation had to have come before the one tribe separation, because both expanding earth theory and pangaea theory controls plate tectonics, thereby controlling mountain formation.

use of the term one tribes is code for 1 race of course (trying to keep the conversation politically correct.)

In short, I got ahead of my self by trying to nullify the bering strait land bridge theory, which is used to show how people migrated to the americas, instead of the use of the babel event.

however, I do believe the expanding earth theory to be more accurate than pangaea, but neither are needed to explain the initial divisions of one tribe. (creation of races.)

You need to read ancient Sumerian text, The Epic of Gilgamesh if I remember correctly.

The biblical story of the flood is directly ripped off from that culture.

reply to post by Hopechest


Or that story is taken from Abraham. I think he was around then, right?

More, those tablets could be recently created and just made to seem old.

Can never tell what's what with archeologists and conspiracy theorists.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Or that story is taken from Abraham. I think he was around then, right?

More, those tablets could be recently created and just made to seem old.

Can never tell what's what with archeologists and conspiracy theorists.

I believe they were dated to about 11,000 years before Abraham. Its been awhile since I studied it so the numbers may be off a bit but the tablets were certainly before the time of the Old Testament. Even the seven day creation story in Genesis is almost an exact copy of the Sumerians seven day creation story. Including the resting on the seventh day although in the Sumerian story, God celebrated on the seventh day.

Well, first of all, the global flood did not have to be global. The people of the Mediterranean area seemed to have experienced a big event as did other cultures around the world. That doesn't mean they were all at the same time though. The flood from the bible says there was a lot of water coming from under the earth, meaning that fracturing of the underground aquifers may have caused a lot of flooding. It seems to me there was a major event that brought on storms at the same time, or just a coincidence that they happened at the same time. Super volcano or massive EQ could do this. Cities could sink into the ground if the earth released or absorbed energy and vibrated for a while. The pyramids had a wide stance so they wouldn't sink much. Everything that didn't crumble sank.

What happened in North America may have been at a different time than Europe though and the flood may have been much earlier than recorded.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

use of the term one tribes is code for 1 race of course (trying to keep the conversation politically correct.)

I hate being "Politically Correct". It stifles imagination, creation, and above all else, free thinkers. Political correctness is nothing more than saying "Keep your thoughts within the box" that institutions designate as "Correct". Institutions are the fence of our minds, in our Sheeple World.

One thing I must constantly keep in mind is that our collective history, only happened once, one way. That isn't to say certain events in ancient times didn't happen more than once, but rather each event, only happened once. in my view it is quite possible that there were more than one great global flood. Each event doing certain and limited things. I suspect their may have been as many as a dozen flood events. The latest being the one that is documented in Gilgamesh's (Bible ) story. Each one carving its own "Canyons", "Straights" or "Rivers". Each one separated by thousands, if not millions of years.

And again the problem with this train of thought is, where did all this water come from? The "Institutions" would have you believe they would be natural cycles of freezing and thawing, Ice Ages melt events. Well I suppose to a certain extent this is possible given the Sun does have hot and cold cycles. But no matter how you add it up, if that were the case, how come it is not reflected in ancient underwater ruins coming in cycle too?. If the water gathers up on the poles during cold cycles, would that not remove enough water to "Naturally" uncover what was created during a Hot cycle?

My adapted theory is that, there is too much water here on Earth. It did not start off with this much water. We are only allowed to consider, by the institutions, that it has always been here. But what if? We know Meteors and dust fall on earth every day, its a fact. Why not consider the same when it comes to water? Why not allow for the possibility?


Water tends to go to the lowest level it can. If there were ancient cave systems that had filled with water over time, and additional water was added to the surface, enough weight to collapse the ceilings of these caverns, then the ensuing collapse could cause water to appear to be bursting upwards to the surface, in some cases looking like volcanoes. Local events, not global. Besides, someone who might have seen this, and live, could not witness it to be a global event, unless they were everywhere around the globe.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


I can't quite visualize what you're saying. Are you nullifying a quick melting phase, and thus ruling out glacial melting? I've heard of the underwater structures around india, china, and the burmudas, but I do not see how they play into what you're saying.

The water drainage came from quick glacier formation but the quick melting of glaciers didn't produce the rain?

If so, I don't see a lot of wiggle room in what you're saying. It's almost entirely true or entirely false; and tbh, I cannot see any evidence for or against your adapted theory.

reply to post by Hopechest


Here's what I think you're saying: The Sumerian tablets were the first rendition, and therefor the most trustworthy, because they have been "dated" to be older than any other known rendition.

I can grant you that what you're saying can be inferred, and could possibly be true; but I can't grant that inference and possibilities make facts. The only possible matter of fact point in the above, that I can see, is that the date of the tablets are older than any other known rendition.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

I can't quite visualize what you're saying. Are you nullifying a quick melting phase, and thus ruling out glacial melting? I've heard of the underwater structures around india, china, and the burmudas, but I do not see how they play into what you're saying.

All the "under water archeological" sites most obviously had to have been built on dry land. The reason given that they are underwater today is because of massive ice melts in the past. I contend that the polar regions can only hold so much water on top of them before the weight of the ice is released through glaciers. You can only stack so much water on the frozen poles. Some of these "sites" are 2500 feet below the surface. Globally, that is a hell of a lot of water to stack up on the poles. 2500 feet globally would translate to thousands upon thousands of cubic miles of water.

The present oceans occupy approximately 72 % of the surface area of our planet, which equates roughly to 141,600,000 square miles. So lets say a half mile of water came from somewhere that flooded the ancient civilization, that would equate to roughly 708,000,000 cubic miles of water, globally.

The Arctic sea ice can contain anywhere from 28000 km to 12000km of ice at any given time. psc.apl.washington.edu...

The northern most regions of the planet, Russia and US Alaska do hold some annual ice, but for the most part, land in the north is ice free.

Antarctica presently holds 6.3 million cubic miles of ice. I would imagine Antarctica is holding as much ice as it can, or ever could. The question is, can it hold an additional 700,000,000 cubic miles of ice, so that ancient civilizations could build on dry land?

Glacial Ice melts are literally, a spit in the bucket when it comes to global floods. So if the flood waters did not come from glacial melts, then where?

Originally posted by Hopechest
You need to read ancient Sumerian text, The Epic of Gilgamesh if I remember correctly.

The biblical story of the flood is directly ripped off from that culture.

Ripped off really? Just so happens that Abraham, founder if you will of the Hebrews, was fron Ur just a jog down the road from...well heck it was a sumerian city state. And really the flood story is what it is and didnt belong to anyone....you know like copyrights and what not.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Here's what I think you're saying: The Sumerian tablets were the first rendition, and therefor the most trustworthy, because they have been "dated" to be older than any other known rendition.

I can grant you that what you're saying can be inferred, and could possibly be true; but I can't grant that inference and possibilities make facts. The only possible matter of fact point in the above, that I can see, is that the date of the tablets are older than any other known rendition.

edit on 4/6/2013 by Bleeeeep because: reworded for clarity - my brain's thoughts don't translate well to text

Some problems with these two stories when put side by side.....and not taking sides mind you for the sake of a level chit chat here.....the stories have very little in common, only in the main do they shape up.

Any other know written rendition. Thats a problem simply because isolated pacific ilanders have flood stories....big large scale only two people made it out alive flood stories. Early critics had said that these isolated folks stole their versions from the missionaries.....this was untill a comparison with the late Sumerian versions showed that most of the far flung versions were closer to the Sumerian version than to the Hebrew version.

Teen flood?

Chilling! Tell us more!






Is that like a tween nuke?