sophie
Break My Heart
It's simple: We kill the Jesus
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
- Thread starter Valka D'Ur
- Start date
It's simple: We kill the Jesus
The problem is that there is no proof it actually happened.
But nobody f's with the Jesus!
Guys, can I make a request, please? I didn't make this a Red Diamond thread, because I trusted the topic could be discussed without derailing it into spam and nonsense. Please let's not wreck it.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Why would you say no proof? What would be proof to you that water did not cover almost the whole continent of North America, which gave way to an ice age where the ice reached south of the great lakes, before they melted back to their present location? Why would some scientist claim that the Mediterranean has dried up and refilled at least 7 times? Why have they found remains of whole cities that once existed above the current water line on almost every coast of Europe?
What proof would be needed to show the Flood did not happen?
There's much more evidence for "it didn't happen" than "it happened." Maybe not complete, 100% proof, but it's pretty hard to have complete, 100% proof of anything.
As to those things, yes, ice covered a lot of North America and the rest of the world during the ice age, but it was pretty much always ice, never a giant flood. The Mediterranean dries up and refills because plate tectonics are a thing. There are remains of cities near coasts because, hey, sometimes things happen that wipe out cities and cities are generally near water?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
There was water before ice in NA. I keep hearing about all this evidence and all I get is an explanation of what I already stated. According to the Bible during the Flood there was this tectonic thing going on also. If the ice on the poles continues to melt we may see even more coastal areas under water.
We have evidence of water covering the continents, then there was an ice age, and since then the ice has been melting and now there is water covering land areas that used to be above sea level. I am curious what is this "much more" evidence.
We have evidence of water covering the continents, then there was an ice age, and since then the ice has been melting and now there is water covering land areas that used to be above sea level. I am curious what is this "much more" evidence.
According to your beliefs, the world is at most 6000 years old, correct? The last glacial retreat occurred several thousand years previous to this mythical "creation." So if you're going to use the retreat of the glaciers to explain the Flood story, you're saying it happened before Earth (and everything else) was created. Now it's been awhile since the last time I read that section of Genesis, but I don't remember Noah and his family existing before the part that says, "In the beginning...".
Which scientist made that claim? Link, please? I would be interested in reading about that.
Cities are found in a lot of interesting places, and some of them were destroyed by earthquakes, mudslides, fires, war, floods, and some were abandoned due to drought and the people just left the city to crumble into dust. There are many ways for cities to be destroyed, buried, and forgotten.
Of course there was water here before the last Ice Age. The part of North America where I live was once an inland sea, and the rock strata and fossils show this.
What "tectonic thing" was going on during the Flood? Chapter/verse, please, so I can read it, as this is something I haven't heard mentioned before.
Water covers land that used to be above sea level for a number of reasons, the most common of which is simply the result of plate tectonics. Nowadays, some water covers land due to increased rates of climate change (ie. some low-lying islands that are disappearing into the ocean). Even parts of the Canadian Arctic are no longer as solidly above water as they were before.
There have been several Ice Ages, not just the one.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
it's not that water did not cover the earth at one time,(or at different places over time) it's that this in no way is linked to the myths and stories, one half of the argument does not prove the other half of the argument...
the myth requires both evidence of a flood and evidence that man was there when a flood happened, the Gilgamesh myth has both but is limited to the known world at that time, except a large building/citadel was on the flood plains and was used as a safe place during floods interestingly a ziggurat seems to be at its centre made with bricks and tar for mortar, as were walls also with tar for mortar (unusual for building in the rest of the area) found around the site... a giant waterproof ark? that could be used in times of flood a yearly occurrence and vital to the farming techniques of the time...
Ur maybe
Spoiler :
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I am not talking about the time frame. That is not the issue. I am asking why we already have scientific evidence that a world wide Flood is plausible, even if it does not fit into the current time frames. The geology of the Mediterranean is called the Messinian salinity crisis and it ranges between 5.5 and 5.6 million years ago.
Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 states that water was able to come up from the depths of the earth and then the earth closed back and stopped the flow of water. This sounds like fissures being opened in the crust which we would call tectonic movement. Today such fissures release molten lava.
We will never agree on the time frame, but you have to agree that there is evidence of massive flooding in more than one part of the earth. So it does not seem that it is the observable evidence, but only the time frame involved. I think that even if you looked at the accepted occurrence of events, even the order would be correct. The Bible just seems to claim that everything happened faster than the dating method allows. If the time factor is the only evidence against the Flood, then that does not rule out a Flood of global proportion. It just rules out the acceptability of the Biblical account.
Is it wrong for me to point out that the evidence is there, just in the wrong time frame?
@ Graffito
What do you mean one half of the argument? It is a time factor thing. That is an argument in itself. I am not talking about something that happened 2 billion years ago. The claim was made that there is no evidence of a global flood. It just happens that tectonic movement pushed the NA continent up over time trapping what was once the ocean floor into Colorado and before an ice age.
There is the video about what would happen if the earth stopped spinning over a 5 year period and it showed in an alleged scientific manner how drastic the earth would change. They did not even use tectonic movement.
Even if it was a local flood, it did not say that it buried the city and that they had time to make clay tablets to tell about it that were buried along with them. It would seem to me that even after the flood, Ur got buried and forgotten, and it could have been caused by the geological changes and tectonic movement hundreds of years later.
What if every major catastrophic event on the earth changed the way the dating method works?
Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 states that water was able to come up from the depths of the earth and then the earth closed back and stopped the flow of water. This sounds like fissures being opened in the crust which we would call tectonic movement. Today such fissures release molten lava.
We will never agree on the time frame, but you have to agree that there is evidence of massive flooding in more than one part of the earth. So it does not seem that it is the observable evidence, but only the time frame involved. I think that even if you looked at the accepted occurrence of events, even the order would be correct. The Bible just seems to claim that everything happened faster than the dating method allows. If the time factor is the only evidence against the Flood, then that does not rule out a Flood of global proportion. It just rules out the acceptability of the Biblical account.
Is it wrong for me to point out that the evidence is there, just in the wrong time frame?
@ Graffito
What do you mean one half of the argument? It is a time factor thing. That is an argument in itself. I am not talking about something that happened 2 billion years ago. The claim was made that there is no evidence of a global flood. It just happens that tectonic movement pushed the NA continent up over time trapping what was once the ocean floor into Colorado and before an ice age.
There is the video about what would happen if the earth stopped spinning over a 5 year period and it showed in an alleged scientific manner how drastic the earth would change. They did not even use tectonic movement.
Even if it was a local flood, it did not say that it buried the city and that they had time to make clay tablets to tell about it that were buried along with them. It would seem to me that even after the flood, Ur got buried and forgotten, and it could have been caused by the geological changes and tectonic movement hundreds of years later.
What if every major catastrophic event on the earth changed the way the dating method works?
Well, sure, large parts of the Earth have been either covered with water or not covered with water at various times, but my knowledge of, among other things, basic geology and third-grade math tells me that there is not physically enough water on Earth to completely flood it at once.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
well I was following the thread arks/ Noah / boats/Gilgamesh and
well if people have experinces of it it can only be Noahs flood, or was there another one... the argument has two parts flood/people
Spoiler :
You appear to be offering contradictory statements. This is either about the time frame, or it is not about the time frame.
Thank you for the link about the Mediterranean. I'm finding it very interesting (as an aside to any SF fans: Poul Anderson wrote a short story called "Gibraltar Falls" in which a time traveler went back to the time when the Atlantic broke through the land barrier, to record some of the imagery and sounds of the creation of the Mediterranean. This story is included in his anthology of linked stories, Time Patrol).
I don't have a problem with the concept of the Mediterranean being "recreated" more than once. Geologic time is vast, and as long as the observations support the theory, I'm fine with that. I do note the Wikipedia article offers several hypotheses, and there are numerous "citation needed" notations.
However, the Mediterranean is not the entire world, and the time frame is considerably before the events of Genesis, and even considerably before the human species. Therefore, this is not evidence of any sort to support the floods of either Noah or Gilgamesh.
There are a number of ways that water was formed on Earth, and yes, there was some in the rocks, and yes, it did come to the surface. But that's not the only way water was formed on the surface, and it happened a very long time ago, well outside the time frame of Genesis.
Massive flooding in parts of the planet, yes, no problem. However, massive flooding on the scale described in Genesis - that happened in "40 days and 40 nights" less than 6000 years ago? No. There is ZERO evidence that that happened.
I have to ask: If you are admitting that the Biblical account is therefore ruled out, why are you trying to convince me it could have happened?
But the evidence isn't there, no matter what time frame (which you earlier said you weren't talking about in the first place).
classical_hero
In whom I trust
So marine fossils aren't found high up on mountain peaks? It means they were once under water to have marine fossils. Also clam shell have been found on even the tallest mountain, so they had to get there somehow.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
yes they have to get there somehow...
but you don't just find shells laying around, you find fossils, often embedded in rock, which is not explained by claiming a flood left them there, because you do not find driftwood on top of mountains, admittedly you might find coke tins and fag packets on top of mountains which could possibly have been left there by a great flood...
it really is one of Gods mysteries
Cheetah
Deity
True. At one point the land which is the mountains must have been covered with water.
That means that at some point in history, the water level must have been higher than now, or the mountain must have been lower than now, or both.
As choxorn pointed out earlier, if the water level had been as high as the mountains are now, there would have had to be far more water on Earth than there is now. So this hypothesis then needs an explanation for where all the extra water disappeared.
Alternatively, we know that the tectonic plates move, and that it is possible for a seabed to be pushed upwards and become dry land and even mountains. Because of the problem with all the extra water in the first hypothesis, this hypothesis seems more plausible, since it explains all the current evidence, without creating further questions.
The mountain peaks were not always mountain peaks. Please see Cheetah's post below (bolding mine):
Aroddo
Emperor
if someone doesn't accept basic science then how can you expect them to accept continental drift?
They'll just base their calculations on numbers straight from lala-land and go "Since the earth is 5000 years old or something, for continental drift to happen, the continents would have to move at 400m per year. Since they don't, the only way for aquatic fossils to appear on mountains is that the great flood was true."
Never mind that fossils are by definition older than 10000 years.
Some people are not looking for facts - they are looking for truthiness.
They'll just base their calculations on numbers straight from lala-land and go "Since the earth is 5000 years old or something, for continental drift to happen, the continents would have to move at 400m per year. Since they don't, the only way for aquatic fossils to appear on mountains is that the great flood was true."
Never mind that fossils are by definition older than 10000 years.
Some people are not looking for facts - they are looking for truthiness.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
You cannot be serious.
