Tackling the flood!

reply to post by Barcs


I would not argue whether comets had salt in them, or for that matter one may have hit earth. But how many, and how large do you think they were that brought all of our water? Would this not be true of other planets as well?

Is there any water, in the Asteroid belt? What does science say of this?

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
reply to post by Barcs

 

I would not argue whether comets had salt in them, or for that matter one may have hit earth. But how many, and how large do you think they were that brought all of our water? Would this not be true of other planets as well?

Is there any water, in the Asteroid belt? What does science say of this?

For the first question, it really depends on the planet type, the temperature, the atmosphere and the size of the comet. If a comet containing salt water hit Venus, chances are it would all evaporate and become part of the already thick, hot atmosphere. Scientists believe comets originate from the oort cloud, which is a frozen gaseous cloud located at the far edges of the solar system, further than Pluto. It may be possible that the earth is in the right position to get nailed by a comet once every hundred thousand to a million years. If that's the case, the water on earth probably built up slowly over time, and probably also contributed to our atmosphere. If not, there was probably one giant collision (likely the one that created the moon). I doubt all of the water could come at once, but I suppose it's possible granted a big enough collision. A collision like that today would probably annihilate all life on earth. I'm not sure if water has been discovered in the asteroid belt, but I very much doubt it.

reply to post by Barcs

"If we could take all the water which is locked up in the moon's interior, it would make a one-meter-deep [one-yard-deep] ocean covering its entire surface," said lead study author Francis McCubbin, a geologist with the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington D.C.

news.nationalgeographic.com... Its quite interesting that the moon has such a volume of water, don't you agree?

I understand science does not consider folklore or fables, or myths, when it comes to scientific conclusions. Now, I for one, do not dispel any source for information. I only try to consider the source, the mentality of the source, and the society from which it comes from. And, how the information relates to other sources who are saying the same thing. I do consider science that is based in logic and proven to be correct. I also consider the possibility that there are forces, powers, that maintain a iron grip on the disclosure of scientific fact, that has been proven, that would change the world, for the better.

I do not believe "Comets" alone, brought water to our planet. The moon, now proven to contain vast amounts of water, must now be suspect, in playing a part, in the great flood.

It may also be no coincidence that before the flood, there was no moon.

As it turns out, a lot of myths, legends, and tales say that there used to be no Moon in the sky. The Moon appeared after the Great Flood. This was noticed by the people who lived in the south of Greece, as well as by African tribes and others. However, there were a lot of ebb and flow traces found in many ancient cities. As is well known, it's is the Moon that causes ebbs and flows. This does not coincide with the no-Moon theory before the Flood. However, if there was no Moon, then maybe there was another celestial body to fulfil its functions? Other sources say that there used to be two or even several moons shining in the sky. It is not ruled out that those other Earth satellites were “in charge” of ebbs and flows.

Many myths and legends say that the Moon rose in the sky after the after-Flood darkness cleared up. Did the Moon cause the Flood?

english.pravda.ru...

This in no way is proof that the moon was used to transport vast amounts of water to earth to cause the great flood, its all just hearsay. But what does the moon itself say about this? Ever notice the large dark circles on the moon? They look like really big wet spots, don't they.

Science can not nor will consider the moon as a instrument in the great flood, until they can harness and apply anti gravity to something as large as the moon. Nor can they accept a ancient culture to be more technologically advanced than we are today.

Maybe it should be mandatory for all scientists to study ancient history before they are allowed to participate in "Peer Review".

reply to post by Barcs

I'm not sure if water has been discovered in the asteroid belt, but I very much doubt it.

Doubt no longer, Water has been discovered in the Asteroid belt.

Top space boffins say that they have discovered signs of ice on a second asteroid, indicating that water may be commonly found throughout the asteroid belt - which would be good news indeed for humanity's future in space, as well as offering an intriguing insight into the remote past of Earth.

www.theregister.co.uk...
www.popularmechanics.com...

In the "Mythology" it states there was a planet in the orbit of the asteroid belt, Tiamat, and it had a great deal of water on it. The myth tells us it was destroyed by an act of war. Its remnants are the asteroids themselves, and, its water would still be in the orbit as well, unless, it was harvested, previously. But how could the waters of Tiamat be harvested from space?



Those dark spots sure look interesting.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


It is very clear that the expanding Earth theory was shown to be false in the 1950s and 1960s. The notion that the Earth expands can be tested today using satellites that show it is NOT expanding. When models of the Earth have been created to show the Earth and its land masses connected on a smaller Earth, they include connecting land across the Pacific that was never connected.

I have a strong suspicion as to where it came from but our present scientific community with all of their built in prejudices are just not ready.

In other words you want to toss in some fairy tale to support the fairy tale of the expanding Earth.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye

In the "Mythology" it states there was a planet in the orbit of the asteroid belt, Tiamat, and it had a great deal of water on it. The myth tells us it was destroyed by an act of war. Its remnants are the asteroids themselves, and, its water would still be in the orbit as well, unless, it was harvested, previously. But how could the waters of Tiamat be harvested from space?

1. The ancients did not know about asteroids or the asteroid belt.
2. There isn't enough mass in the asteroid belt to made our Moon let alone a planet.

The dark spots on the Moon are igneous flows.

If the flood as described in the bible had happened what would we notice?
1. Reduced biological diversity over what is evident today
2. A silt layer that could be found worldwide - none ever found

Remember that the flood takes about a year. The plants of Earth would all have been killed. A complete rebirth of all plants on Earth would have been required. Seeds would have had to survive a year of immersion. How did the sloth get to South America? How did the panda get to China without any food available to it in the intervening distance? How did legless lizards get to Baja without stopping anywhere in between? This must have happened long before ancient Egypt started because they show no stoppage in work or a break in their rulers.

The Earth is not changing size. Continuous tree ring sequences in at least 2 places in the world go back 10,000 years. Varves in Japanese lakes go back 25,000 years. They show no effects from a global flood. The Scablands are due to a localized flood.

It would take 14 Atlantic Ocean volumes to flood the world.

The "underwater pyramids" are a natural feature.

Lots of reasons to know that there has not been a global flood.

reply to post by Nightaudit

I think it is know fact that the planet expands

Looks like some folks didn't get the message. Well, I suppose back in the day it took a thousand years to get the word out that the earth wasn't really flat. I suppose some people are just stubborn, or, have a "secret agenda".

Parts 1 and 2 of 14 "Oneoff Publishing.com author James Maxlow presents his latest work on the Expanding Earth Hypothesis at the Nexus Conference with examples from his book Terra Non Firma Earth. Many thanks to Dr Maxlow and Duncan Roads for permission to place this presentation online."

reply to post by All Seeing Eye

Looks like some folks didn't get the message. Well, I suppose back in the day it took a thousand years to get the word out that the earth wasn't really flat. I suppose some people are just stubborn, or, have a "secret agenda".

Parts 1 and 2 of 14 "Oneoff Publishing.com author James Maxlow presents his latest work on the Expanding Earth Hypothesis at the Nexus Conference with examples from his book Terra Non Firma Earth. Many thanks to Dr Maxlow and Duncan Roads for permission to place this presentation online."

Oh boy a video from a hoaxer.

Do you have idea how ancient man figured out that the world was not flat? Probably not.

Anyone that falls for an expanding earth video would be unlikely to figure out that the world is not flat.

reply to post by Nightaudit


The author of the flood story was describing a flood that wiped out the entire known world to him,

There is evidence of areas of the Mesopotamian region and Lake Chad suffering severe flooding thousands of years ago,

The "global" flood wiped out civilization in the middle eastern world, not on the entire globe. The wording was left in tact to leave the Bibles authenticity unscathed

jandyongenesis.blogspot.com...

biologos.org...

reply to post by Hopechest


11,000 years before Abraham?

Really?

Do you realize Abraham lived around 2,000 B.C.,

So you're saying the tablets were engraved around 13,000 B.C.?

That predates archaeology's current understanding that writing started occurring and written history began around 3 or 4,000 B.C.

It's obvious you have not researched this and have no idea what you're speaking of.

reply to post by Nightaudit


Yes.
1) Look at a map, understanding the land masses have obviously been at one time connected. This is not rocket surgery...
2) Simply look at how mountains are formed. Uplift, downfalls, and volcanism.

reply to post by totallackey

1) Look at a map, understanding the land masses have obviously been at one time connected. This is not rocket surgery...
2) Simply look at how mountains are formed. Uplift, downfalls, and volcanism.

If I look at a map I see not the continents, but the shore outlines. If I try to match up the continents I see some matching across the Atlantic, but not the Pacific. Pangaea and Rhodinia have been proposed based not on guesses from a map, but also on matching up geology across what might have been connected land. Paleomagnetic studies also have been used.

At best we could say most land land, not all land might have been connected into a super continent at least twice.

You claim no mountains. Where did that come from? Seriously? You think there were no mountains at some distant time in the past? Maybe you could tell us more about that.

reply to post by stereologist


You are actually very correct here. I was confusing this earlier with the tectonic plates drifting apart. The earth not expanding is long known scientific fact.

reply to post by totallackey


What are you trying to say here?

Both of these points have nothing at ALL to do with a flood happening or not.

reply to post by Nightaudit

Yes, they most certainly do. The thing is, you need to understand what catastrophes are, especially those affecting all the globe...and ignore what the theories of gradualism which have been slammed in your brain...

reply to post by totallackey

Yes, they most certainly do. The thing is, you need to understand what catastrophes are, especially those affecting all the globe...and ignore what the theories of gradualism which have been slammed in your brain...

The thing is, you need to understand that we all know more than you do. Neither of your 2 points has anything to do with a global flood. No amount of pretentious baloney from you changes that fact. I've heard all sorts of stupid claims from creationist lectures who invariably have to rely on magic to make their claims work. As one lecturer told his audience, "We're not afraid to have a miracle happen." That pretty much sums up the global flood claims - it's all based on smoke and mirrors and begging for magic.

There is zero evidence for a global flood.

reply to post by stereologist


Well, I guess this is the point where we could close this thread. Creationists as always have argued without facts and with a lot of nonsensical statements, and reason in form of Stereologist has proven them wrong again.

Well, I guess it is safe to say that the flood didn´t happen. At least not in the way how it is described in the bible.

Thanks to everyone for participating here. And if there are some creationists left who want to throw some arguments around then you´re very welcome of course.

reply to post by Nightaudit


I believe the no mountains claim is used to reduce the amount of water necessary to cover the Earth. If the oceans are deepened and continents are uplifted, then the flood drains off the land and into the newly formed ocean basins. The problems for this idea are many including isostacy, the structure of older eroded mountains, the smooth deposition of materials on ocean floors, paleomagnetism, etc. The idea fails in many, many ways.

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by stereologist

 

Well, I guess this is the point where we could close this thread. Creationists as always have argued without facts and with a lot of nonsensical statements, and reason in form of Stereologist has proven them wrong again.

It appears you already had your mind made up before you started this thread. The thread would have been better if you didn't take a side and allowed both sides to present their case.

I thought All Seeing Eye was doing a fine job presenting his side of the case.