Atlantis: What is it all about?

Was Atlantis real?


  • Total voters
    47
What mammals seen by the people writing Genesis predated birds?

Are these the same people that saw an ocean covered magma world? Or saw the creation of the moon? Or saw Eden?
 
Genesis doesn't say 'mammals', so not really sure why we're focusing on them. I mean, it puts livestock before people, for goodness sake. But if we're to ignore that, then a 'simple' mistake like putting birds before land animals (but along with sea creatures) will be easy to do.
 
If no one saw all those steps how did "the author" know what to write? Did God dictate Genesis?
 
Si if it was taken from Enuma Elish, who authored that and what was their source?
 
The article I linked shows 'modern' birds and mammals appeared around the time of the KT extinction

You're equivocating about "modern". The article is about orders, not species. It's not saying that the animals that we see around us go back 65 million years. Obviously that isn't true. It's saying that the orders to which they belong go back that far. That is not the same thing. You said before that the authors of Genesis weren't talking about long-extinct species. But the earliest members of the modern orders are long-extinct species.

What mammals seen by the people writing Genesis predated birds?

None. And none of the birds they saw predated mammals either. So if you're claiming that all the living things described in the opening chapters of Genesis refer exclusively to modern species then those chapters are all false, because they state that fish predated land animals and so on. Which isn't true if they're referring only to modern species.

Your claims aren't consistent. You can't say on the one hand that the creation myths of Genesis are accurate accounts of the formation of the Earth and evolution of life and say on the other that they're exclusively about modern species. These are incompatible claims. You need to choose between them.
 
@Plotinus You forget that the Enuma Elish is the original creation document and he will fall back to that story to explain away Genesis errors. :)
 
Si if it was taken from Enuma Elish, who authored that and what was their source?

Then Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel at Shechem. He summoned the elders, leaders, judges, and officers of Israel, and they presented themselves before God. And Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your fathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods. - Joshua 24:1-2

The Enuma Elish tradition probably dates back at least that far but the people writing Genesis had access to more recent versions circa 600 bc. I dont think the basics of the story change much but some of the names do, scholars think before the Babylonians and Marduk was an older version from the Sumerians where Enlil was the hero. Could the tradition predate writing in the region?

I dont know who is responsible for every detail in these stories, but when I see peoples around the world separated by vast distances and time sharing the same basic story - and it turns out they're right - then maybe they were right about who they cited as their sources, people from the sky.

@Plotinus You forget that the Enuma Elish is the original creation document and he will fall back to that story to explain away Genesis errors. :)

Where did I cite the Enuma Elish about the sequence of life in Genesis?

The Enuma Elish fills in gaps appearing in Genesis, gaps created when monotheists tried to remove the planetary gods from the creation story. Here's an example from the 1st tablet of the Enuma Elish:

103 He was clothed with the aura of the Ten Gods, so exalted was his strength

Thats a description of Marduk, the Sun and the 8 original planets about 4 bya... Genesis starts with Tiamat/tehom and jumps to the 4th tablet with the wind of Marduk/God. Those ~3 tablets describe what happened between the appearance of the proto-Earth (tehom/Tiamat) in Gen 1:2 and the arrival of God's wind.

I said the sequence of life looks flawed, insects preceded flight. Or maybe insects weren't even a consideration. I said a while back I'm not defending everything in Genesis, I am defending the cosmology.

Today I learned Adam and Eve co-authored Genesis.

and you recently learned water can cover magma before it becomes land

You're equivocating about "modern". The article is about orders, not species. It's not saying that the animals that we see around us go back 65 million years. Obviously that isn't true. It's saying that the orders to which they belong go back that far. That is not the same thing. You said before that the authors of Genesis weren't talking about long-extinct species. But the earliest members of the modern orders are long-extinct species.

None. And none of the birds they saw predated mammals either. So if you're claiming that all the living things described in the opening chapters of Genesis refer exclusively to modern species then those chapters are all false, because they state that fish predated land animals and so on. Which isn't true if they're referring only to modern species.

Your claims aren't consistent. You can't say on the one hand that the creation myths of Genesis are accurate accounts of the formation of the Earth and evolution of life and say on the other that they're exclusively about modern species. These are incompatible claims. You need to choose between them.

I didn't say the animals around them were 65 million years old or that Genesis accurately described evolution. Birds predated the explosion in mammalian diversity - horses, camels, cats, wolves/dogs, hyenas, pigs, gazelle, bears, rodents, etc. Now the implication is God created all life and therefore birds (and flight) are out of order and they are. They didn't precede all animal life on land.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillow_lava

Pillow lavas are lavas that contain characteristic pillow-shaped structures that are attributed to the extrusion of the lava underwater

the link was already posted
This was the original disputed post:
Question, why are you guys arguing with a guy who believes that a planet that cools down from it's molten lava state is covered with water before land appears?
It is not that lava cannot be extruded under water, but that is cannot exist as a ball of liquid lava covered in water. It can be a ball of lava covered in a layer of crust covered by water, with some of the lava leaking out now and again, 'cos that is what we have now.
 
Pillow lava forms when magma erupts under water. It does not speak to a magma covered world covered in water.
 
This was the original disputed post:

It is not that lava cannot be extruded under water, but that is cannot exist as a ball of liquid lava covered in water. It can be a ball of lava covered in a layer of crust covered by water, with some of the lava leaking out now and again, 'cos that is what we have now.

At what point would you call that crust under the water land? That was the dispute. And why cant the Earth's surface be molten and covered by water? I'm talking about the proto-Earth which was covered by water as far back as we can tell. What would happen if that ball of lava was forming in a vast reservoir of water vapor and ice like the Norse myth of creation? Our models are based on Earth forming here and we keep trying to import our water. The Norse said the proto-Earth (Ymir) formed where heat melts ice, thats the asteroid belt - the solar system's frost line where gas blown by the solar wind started freezing.

Pillow lava forms when magma erupts under water. It does not speak to a magma covered world covered in water.

Why not? I understand I'm scaling up from the magma currently erupting under water, but I'm also scaling up Earth and its supply of water. The myth describes Tiamat as twice the size of Earth. If Europa can acquire a layer of water/ice dozens of miles deep, a super Earth at the frost line could have had an ocean over a hundred. At what point in the cooling process of that water world would you call magma erupting under a super ocean land?

Every simulation I've seen of the growing Earth shows a red hot ball pelted by rocks with a developing crust. Why couldn't that happen under a 200 mile deep ocean? If thats how the Earth formed (with no ocean), why does the oldest evidence we see show rock was forming in water? If the ocean came later what happened to all the magma that cooled to form land?
 
At what point would you call that crust under the water land? That was the dispute. And why cant the Earth's surface be molten and covered by water? I'm talking about the proto-Earth which was covered by water as far back as we can tell. What would happen if that ball of lava was forming in a vast reservoir of water vapor and ice like the Norse myth of creation? Our models are based on Earth forming here and we keep trying to import our water. The Norse said the proto-Earth (Ymir) formed where heat melts ice, thats the asteroid belt - the solar system's frost line where gas blown by the solar wind started freezing.
I hope you realize that Norse myths are not geology texts, nor are they astrophysics texts, nor chemistry texts. They're stories, and you can try from 20 years ago until the cows come home to force science to conform to your stories, but it isn't going to work.

Why not? I understand I'm scaling up from the magma currently erupting under water, but I'm also scaling up Earth and its supply of water. The myth describes Tiamat as twice the size of Earth. If Europa can acquire a layer of water/ice dozens of miles deep, a super Earth at the frost line could have had an ocean over a hundred. At what point in the cooling process of that water world would you call magma erupting under a super ocean land?
Earth is not twice as big as itself. That is not logical.
 
At what point would you call that crust under the water land? That was the dispute. And why cant the Earth's surface be molten and covered by water? I'm talking about the proto-Earth which was covered by water as far back as we can tell. What would happen if that ball of lava was forming in a vast reservoir of water vapor and ice like the Norse myth of creation? Our models are based on Earth forming here and we keep trying to import our water. The Norse said the proto-Earth (Ymir) formed where heat melts ice, thats the asteroid belt - the solar system's frost line where gas blown by the solar wind started freezing.



Why not? I understand I'm scaling up from the magma currently erupting under water, but I'm also scaling up Earth and its supply of water. The myth describes Tiamat as twice the size of Earth. If Europa can acquire a layer of water/ice dozens of miles deep, a super Earth at the frost line could have had an ocean over a hundred. At what point in the cooling process of that water world would you call magma erupting under a super ocean land?

Every simulation I've seen of the growing Earth shows a red hot ball pelted by rocks with a developing crust. Why couldn't that happen under a 200 mile deep ocean? If thats how the Earth formed (with no ocean), why does the oldest evidence we see show rock was forming in water? If the ocean came later what happened to all the magma that cooled to form land?

Underwater magmatic eruptions are local phenomena where magma from deep within crust breaks through cooler bedrock under water before it has a chance to cool off. But what you are describing is global situation where, due to heat exchange, the water layer and molten rock have somewhat similar temperature. I posted phase diagrams to show that such situation can't happen. A planet sized ball of molten rock would pretty much instantly vaporize any water it would touch, forming an atmosphere of water vapor, which wouldn't be able to condense until the surface of the rock had cooled off to the point when it can coexist with liquid water, at which point it's long since it solidified.
 
I hope you realize that Norse myths are not geology texts, nor are they astrophysics texts, nor chemistry texts.
My understanding is that @Berzerker isn't approaching the myths as geology texts, astrophysics texts, or chemistry texts but rather more akin to historical texts
Earth is not twice as big as itself. That is not logical.
That's because the idea is Earth was formed from the remains of Tiamat. He's not at all saying Earth is twice as big as itself :rolleyes:
 
Tiamat is a myth like Horus, Loki, and the Lady of Mt Tai.
 
Top Bottom