What if the "Ark" is found?

[Rusty T]

This was over the news yesterday on several outlets. Here's the only story online I could find with the referenced satellite images:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38220

Also, here's a link to the 1949 photos that remained classified for years. This article was written before the recent photos were taken, but if I'm reading it right, it's of the same anomaly:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-1.html

Ok, here's my question. I know it's HIGHLY speculative, but what if this turns out to be a huge boat 16,000 feet up on a mountain? I know. . . let's wait and see, but what fun is that?

What kind of reaction from society would it garner? From different quarters?

Just speculating.

tizzi

[NeilUnreal]

Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know. Finding something that was indisputably a huge, ocean-deposited, in-situ vessel on top of Ararat would basically mean abandoning science as a means of knowing about the world. In other words, we’d have to rethink everything we though we knew about rationality from the Greeks on up to the present time.

Since science and engineering have apparently taught us true and pragmatic things about the world, one would be left with a choice:

1) Accept science as true and the ark as some sort of anomaly, unexplainable at the present, but perhaps explainable in the future with more data, or

2) Accept the ark as typical (as opposed to an anomaly), and every finding and conclusion of science and rationality as unexplainable at the present, and perhaps never explainable.

-Neil

[NSMinistries]

I look at it this way... Wood... years... rot... I really can't see a boat lasting that long. Unless it froze right away...

...mutters to self... ya right ...still muttering... shut up they might hear ya... :nsm:

[SteveF]

I look at it this way... Wood... years... rot... I really can't see a boat lasting that long. Unless it froze right away...

...mutters to self... ya right ...still muttering... shut up they might hear ya... :nsm:
And even if it is found then it will be so decayed as to essentially be beyond any serious anlaysis.

[NSMinistries]

And even if it is found then it will be so decayed as to essentially be beyond any serious anlaysis.I would agree. So much history has decayed. Hard to say whats what if its gone...

[Rusty T]

Okay, okay, so we find a decayed BOAT 15,000 ft. up a mountain. . . . Uhm, would analysis be necessary?

[NSMinistries]

Okay, okay, so we find a decayed BOAT 15,000 ft. up a mountain. . . . Uhm, would analysis be necessary?:ahem: well :wink: It would cause a stir wouldn't it...:lol:

[SteveF]

Okay, okay, so we find a decayed BOAT 15,000 ft. up a mountain. . . . Uhm, would analysis be necessary?
Well analysis is always nice.

Further to this, is the boat big? Was it roubust? Does it look to have been purely ceremonial? Could it have survived carrying a large number of animals? When was it built? All important questions.

[Rusty T]

True, true. All true. There would be tons of questions to be answered. No doubt. Whew. . . the debate that would ensue. Perhaps it's better that it probably will not be a boat after all.

tizzi

[NSMinistries]

True, true. All true. There would be tons of questions to be answered. No doubt. Whew. . . the debate that would ensue. Perhaps it's better that it probably will not be a boat after all.

tizziNaw not a boat just a monks summer retreat...:wink:

[DunnySaze]

Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know. Finding something that was indisputably a huge, ocean-deposited, in-situ vessel on top of Ararat would basically mean abandoning science as a means of knowing about the world. In other words, we’d have to rethink everything we though we knew about rationality from the Greeks on up to the present time.

We would?

Why?

Would it not be just another observation in need of investigation? Just because we find a boat up there (assuming we do of course) doesn't mean it was the Ark which got to be in that position exactly and literally as described in Genesis.

[SteveF]

True, true. All true. There would be tons of questions to be answered. No doubt. Whew. . . the debate that would ensue. Perhaps it's better that it probably will not be a boat after all.

tizzi
Yes, it certainly would be an interesting (and probably rather angry) debate that followed.

I guess we'll just have to see.

[rach12]

Another question is, what if the 'anomaly' is a couple of rock outcrops?

Will we be told about that?

Or will they hide the knowledge and/or make up some crazy story about an evolutionist whacko who infiltrated their expedition and kept them from reaching the ark? :smile:

[NSMinistries]

Another question is, what if the 'anomaly' is a couple of rock outcrops?

Will we be told about that?

Or will they hide the knowledge and/or make up some crazy story about an evolutionist whacko who infiltrated their expedition and kept them from reaching the ark? :smile:why is it we put a man on the moon. Dive the deepest oceans, vist the top and bottom of the world but can't seem to make it up some mountains...:teeth:

[Rusty T]

why is it we put a man on the moon. Dive the deepest oceans, vist the top and bottom of the world but can't seem to make it up some mountains...
The Yetis keep throwing rocks at us?

[NSMinistries]

The Yetis keep throwing rocks at us?:lmbo:

[Gilgaron]

I would expect that it won't be big enough to suit global flood requisites for the ark, so it will probably be rejected by AiG and the like. Of course, I'm not sure how one would establish it was the Ark, even if it was very big.

[Socratism]

Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know.

No. Things which have hapopened in the past can not be falsified as readily as things that are happening today. It is important to make this distinction.

Finding something that was indisputably a huge, ocean-deposited, in-situ vessel on top of Ararat would basically mean abandoning science as a means of knowing about the world. In other words, we’d have to rethink everything we though we knew about rationality from the Greeks on up to the present time.

Not at all. It would simply reinforce my statement that we have to be more cautious when dealing with past events.

Since science and engineering have apparently taught us true and pragmatic things about the world, one would be left with a choice:

1) Accept science as true and the ark as some sort of anomaly, unexplainable at the present, but perhaps explainable in the future with more data, or

2) Accept the ark as typical (as opposed to an anomaly), and every finding and conclusion of science and rationality as unexplainable at the present, and perhaps never explainable.

-Neil

I find your failure to distinguish between current science and the science of Origins and the past to be unfortunate.

[Socratism]

I would expect that it won't be big enough to suit global flood requisites for the ark, so it will probably be rejected by AiG and the like. Of course, I'm not sure how one would establish it was the Ark, even if it was very big.

I think you are correct in effectively admitting that evolution and old ages are sustained by what amounts to "religious" fervor.

[learning]

I've read where some think that Noah's ark could be on a mountain in the south of Turkey, bordering on Syria and Iran I think, it is called Mt. Judi , and this was something David Rohl had a web page on, but it is gone.

I do remember his saying in the article, that there had been an ancient monastery on there that had got hit by lightning, so was no more, and that women from that area would take the pitch from this ark- boat- wood (this is a tale that is told) and rub it on their faces, because they considered it holy. There is even a tale that some people of a certain sect would sacrifice yearly on an altar that Noah was supposed to have built. The only thing that makes me think this could be possible is that they say there were records of this place before 1300 apparently in the church. Anyone in the official Greek Orthodox or Catholic church know anything about this?

This still fits the Mountains of Ararat

[Virginia_Man]

If a the boat is up on those mountains, it won't prove that its Noah's Ark. First of all, the boat would have been big enough to fit all the 2 of each animals(male and female) all around the world, Noah, and the other people he had with him. Secondly, the whole Noah's Ark story is.......illogical. God making a rainbow to REMIND himself(like he would forget anything) alone is silly, not to mention that there was giants back in those days. If God made a rainbow to remind him not to flood us no more, then why is it so easy for science to make one too? Hmmmm!! And (please correct me if I'm wrong) didn't Noah sacrifice an animal on the boat, meaning the end of the existence for that particular animal? :uhoh:

[Gilgaron]

I think you are correct in effectively admitting that evolution and old ages are sustained by what amounts to "religious" fervor.
How's that? Socrates posted once about how the necessary size of the ark would be feasible.

I'd be surprised if this ship they are going to find is as large as he postulated, and in such a case would expect them to reject it as the ark.

If it is as large as required to be the ark, why do you think it is simple to declare it the ark when it may be another ship?

Future archaeologists may be able to know how large the USS Constitution is, but if all they find is a wooden hulk bereft of identification it will be problematic to differentiate it from similar vessels of the era.

So, I've given my reasoning. What is your reasoning for assuming that this must be the one true ark?

[learning]

Virginia Man, Noah didn't just take on two of each animal, there were others that were considered 'clean' food, of these they took on 7 each. After all, they had to eat and feed some of the animals too! And Noah didn't sacrifice that clean animal until after they were off it.

And anyways, it says right in the Bible (according to Hebrew cubics) how big the ark would have to be, so all they have to do is measure it by that. I personally don't think that they'll find it, though of course I don't know, because I think they would just make an idol out of it, you know? So I think that is why God has let it be hidden, if it hasn't already rotted.

[SteveF]

How's that? Socrates posted once about how the necessary size of the ark would be feasible.
Did his argument involve a weblink perchance?

[Socratism]

if it hasn't already rotted

Or was used as a handy source of building material in a treeless landscape.

[trueseeker]

It would be great if they found the ark. Just think of all the theories and debate. All of the research to tell us what had been in it. A Ark land amusement park. The Smithsonian would have to build bigger warehouses to hide pieces of it away from the public.

I suspect that the majority of it is long sense gone. Manure in it would have rotted it. Good sections of it probably were used to build other structures, other pieces used to burn, and just think of all the ski's they had to make for all of the feet that came out of the ark.

But if they did just scramble down the mountain side to get to lower ground, and it was left intact covered with pitch, frozen, perhaps a wooden structure could last over 4,000 years?

[Gilgaron]

Did his argument involve a weblink perchance?
I'm sorry, but I don't recall, it was a while ago. He talked about the dimensions and how the size would make it self righting so it couldn't capsize and that sort of thing.

There may have been a link to a relevant AiG article. You could ask him, if you like.

[SteveF]

Or was used as a handy source of building material in a treeless landscape.
Yup, there is a lot of call for building material at the top of a mountain.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Or was used as a handy source of building material in a treeless landscape.On another thread, I noted the following quote from Josephus:


"Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus:
"It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

For what it is worth.

Goody

[DunnySaze]

And even if it is found then it will be so decayed as to essentially be beyond any serious anlaysis.

Actually this question is quite academic as they've already said they will not be collecting samples:

"We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it," McGivern told reporters.

I have to wonder why not? Perhaps it's exactly because an actual chunk of wood might be subjected to actual tests. Whereas photos can be much more vague and subjected to seeing whatever you want to see.

[SteveF]

Actually this question is quite academic as they've already said they will not be collecting samples:

"We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it," McGivern told reporters.

I have to wonder why not? Perhaps it's exactly because an actual chunk of wood might be subjected to actual tests. Whereas photos can be much more vague and subjected to seeing whatever you want to see.
Oh dear. There are going to be a lot of gullible people out there who accept whatever these con artists throw at them.

Shame, it could have all been so interesting.

[DunnySaze]

Oh dear. There are going to be a lot of gullible people out there who accept whatever these con artists throw at them.

Shame, it could have all been so interesting.

However, I find it hard to believe that should they actually find a piece of wood up there somewhere that they wouldn't bring it back. This way, if they don't find anything convincing but merely 'suggestive' they'll just point to their statements that they never planned on bringing a sample back when asked why they didn't. And if they do find something more tangible, they can just say they changed their minds. It's a win-win situation!

[Rusty T]

About the non-excavating. . . . Just guessing, but they probably don't have the governmental permits to do so. But then again, I tend to see the good in people - except for John Kerry. (just kidding)

[SteveF]

Its nice to see the good in people, I usually do it myself. Here though, for some reason I seem to have turned into an insufferable cycnic. I think it may have something to do with the picture of a mountain top with a vaguely circular line on top that is apparently an ark!

[DunnySaze]

Actually this question is quite academic as they've already said they will not be collecting samples:

"We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it," McGivern told reporters.

I have to wonder why not? Perhaps it's exactly because an actual chunk of wood might be subjected to actual tests. Whereas photos can be much more vague and subjected to seeing whatever you want to see.

Hmmm, now this is weird. Over at the website of the Armenian News Agency Armenpress (http://www.armenpress.am/eng/news/culture.htm) there is more to the story. They say in part:

...
Mr. McGivern has compiled a team of scientists, archaeologists and forensic experts to excavate the object and collect samples beginning in August of this year. The goal is o enter what they believe to be a mammoth structure some 45 feet high, 75 feet wide and up to 450 feet long that was exposed in part by last summer's heat wave in Europe. "We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it," McGivern said.

...

"These new photos unequivocally show a man-made object," said Mr. McGivern. "I am convinced that the excavation of the object and the results of tests run on any collected samples will prove that it is Noah's Ark." The field manager for the excavation will be Dr. Ahmet Ali Arslan, a native of Turkey who has traveled up Mount Ararat 50 times in 40 years and formerly worked in the Turkey Prime Minister's office. He plans to discuss the details of the excavation with the Prime Minister next week.
...



Well I'm no journalist. But it seems to me that the same person is quoted in that story as saying both that they will and that they will not excavate.

Most puzzling.

I suppose when he said "we", he wasn't counting the people who would be doing the excavating as part of the "we". They must be "them".

[Rusty T]

Perhaps the native of Turkey is going to be excavating for the country of Turkey? Just a guess. Could you imagine the interest Turkey has invested in this? I don't know what would be more economically advantageous: groups of rich researchers and adventurers coming in every year; or a huge tourist attraction (if they find anything at all that they can claim was or is a boat)? Well, I'm sure we'll either (a) hear all about it or (b) hear nothing at all.

tizzi

[learning]

By the way, if the boat was frozen, of course it could survive. There have been boats found in the artic that have been found, even people found frozen from the days of explorers, so well frozen, {clothes, eyes were still intact} that they were able to do atopsies and find what they died of (some was lead poisoning from what their food was stored in, scurvy, starvation, freezing etc,) and so, I am sure that IF it is frozen there, it may be found. But, I still think it could be another mountain, so I think they are looking on the wrong mountain.

[learning]

tizzidale, what is the Orthodox church's position on where the ark rested? Did they have a monastery there at one time?

[kendemyer]

1) INTERESTING ARK ARTICLE ABOUT QUEST FOR ARK AND A EXPEDITION THAT IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR JULY/AUG 2004:

Here is an interesting link about the quest to find the ark and about a Mt. Ararat expedition that is taking place around July/August of 2004:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38290


Sincerely,

Ken

[Tickle Me Goody]

1) INTERESTING ARK ARTICLE ABOUT QUEST FOR ARK AND A EXPEDITION THAT IS EXPECTED TO OCCUR JULY/AUG 2004:

Here is an interesting link about the quest to find the ark and about a MT. Ararat expedition that is taking place around July/August of 2004:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38290

2) NeilUnreal's logical fallacy:

NeilUnreal posted:

"Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know. Finding something that was indisputably a huge, ocean-deposited, in-situ vessel on top of Ararat would basically mean abandoning science as a means of knowing about the world."

I believe this gentleman is committing a logical fallacy. I would argue that just because a particular group of scientists were wrong about a global flood does not mean that we have to abandon all of science. If I am not mistaken I think the gentleman is committing this particular logical fallacy:

"Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property"

taken from: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm


Sincerely,

Ken
I agree completely. Should something that does not fit in a particular part of science, then we have to rethink that current paradigm. That is the reason for the postaulate of of "dark matter". We simply do not understand what is going on at the outer edges of our own galaxy.

Some YECs think that we should then abandon all science ---- but that just prevents the possibilty of any future advances. Before nuclear reactions were discovered, scientists predicted that the sun could not last very long. We now know better.

OTOH, maybe a negative result to find any type of dark matter concept could allow for the possibilty that God may be directly holding the galaxy together. Doubtfut (IMO) ---- but possible.

Goody

[kendemyer]

I wish you had not posted what I later edited ( I do take the blame, however, because I did in fact post it for all to see). I later edited out the commentary re: NeilUnreal's post.

I chose to delete the NeilUnreal portion of my post because I simply cannot determine how NeilUnreal came up with his statement that "Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know" because he never supported it with any information.

So how did NeilUnreal arrive at the opinion of "Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know."? Via a thorough a careful examination and analysis of all the data and all the assumptions that many scientists used to form the opinion that there never was a global flood? Via examining the current consensus of the scientific community (logicians would call this ad populum fallacy)? I simply do not know how NeilUnreal came up with his conclusion that I cited above because he never offered any real evidence. So I just deleted that portion of my post rather than speculate on how NeilUnreal came up with his conclusion.

I also do not think a tremendous amount of research dollars have been poured into what specific and clear evidence a global flood would leave or not leave in order to make dogmatic assertions from an empirical standpoint that there was no global flood. I also think that time would erase a lot of evidence although I recognize the fact that creationist and evolutionist debate the issue of global flood evidence heatedly. After looking at the issue from strictly a science view, I have come to the conclusion that young earth creationism is the best inference given the data. If anyone wishes to examine why I have come to this conclusion I offer the following information: http://www.apologetics.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=937&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I also do not want to see this thread turned into a old earth/young earth or creation/evolution debate because I feel that would be taking the string into area that the string author may or probably does not want it to go. In short, I think that NeilUnreal and I should just agree to disagree in relation to the evidence for a global flood.

Sincerely,

Ken

[DunnySaze]

After looking at the issue from strictly a science view, I have come to the conclusion that young earth creationism is the best inference given the data.

By "data" you must mean adding up the Biblical chronologies, as other than that there is not one single piece of physical evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old or even as much as 10,000.

Not one.

Strictly a science view indeed.

If I'm wrong, then name a single piece of evidence.

[Tickle Me Goody]

I wish you had not posted what I later edited ( I do take the blame, however, because I did in fact post it for all to see). I later edited out the commentary re: NeilUnreal's post.

I chose to delete the NeilUnreal portion of my post because I simply cannot determine how NeilUnreal came up with his statement that "Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know" because he never supported it with any information.

So how did NeilUnreal arrive at the opinion of "Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know."? Via a thorough a careful examination and analysis of all the data and all the assumptions that many scientists used to form the opinion that there never was a global flood? Via examining the current consensus of the scientific community (logicians would call this ad populum fallacy)? I simply do not know how NeilUnreal came up with his conclusion that I cited above because he never offered any real evidence. So I just deleted that portion of my post rather than speculate on how NeilUnreal came up with his conclusion.

I also do not think a tremendous amount of research dollars have been poured into what specific and clear evidence a global flood would leave or not leave in order to make dogmatic assertions from an empirical standpoint that there was no global flood. I also think that time would erase a lot of evidence although I recognize the fact that creationist and evolutionist debate the issue of global flood evidence heatedly. After looking at the issue from strictly a science view, I have come to the conclusion that young earth creationism is the best inference given the data. If anyone wishes to examine why I have come to this conclusion I offer the following information: http://www.apologetics.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=937&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I also do not want to see this thread turned into a old earth/young earth or creation/evolution debate because I feel that would be taking the string into area that the string author may or probably does not want it to go. In short, I think that NeilUnreal and I should just agree to disagree in relation to the evidence for a global flood.

Sincerely,

Ken
My apologies

Although I do not see what your problem was or is.

Goody

Also, I do not tend to "debate". I leave that to you "SJ" types of personalities as such.

[kendemyer]

TO: Goodygoody

I have absolutely no problem with your post before. I hope my private email to you cleared up this matter.

Sincerely,

Ken

[PennyDreadful]

The ark was likely taken apart and used for other purposes.

[Lion]

I have to agree with Pennydreadful. I have been intimately acquainted with several people who have gone on expeditions to Ararat. They never found anything. It all started when some Russian aviators supposedly saw the ark on a high altitude flight. Unfortunately the revolution destroyed all evidence of the flight.

The people in the ark needed material for building and here was a vast amount of it going to waste. The scoffers will always deny that the flood and the ark existed. I don't know if it will help anyone or not, but I am acquainted by email with a man who has been in the area. He probably will be instumental in organizing an expedition in the next year or so. I quote part of his letter to me. I had asked him about his visit to Armenia and his his discovery of some monuments he saw.

"at the end of the lake opposite the parking lot for the Physics Institute there (they are studying cosmic rays) I found seven carved stones, most of them relatively badly weathered, some better than others. Some of them have depictions of the members of Noah's family. The most important one is a triangular stone about 4 and 1/2 feet high that has the head of Noah on the peak of the stone, then a flat space carved around it and then the depictions of the three sons down below. Another stone shows on its end the three sons taking Noah up for burial. I did not put all of this together until I got back to the US and was studying the pictures a couple of months later and then it dawned on me that the triangular stone was depicting the burialmound and the sons were shown taking Noah up to the burial mount for his placement in the grave.

On the opposite side of Lake Qare, the inside as opposed to the outside where the Physics Institute is located, there is a high mound that is obviously artificial in contrast to the natural slopes of the mountain on each side of it. This then is the burial mound of Noah according to the indication of the rock cut depictions that we found. Later on we found the tomb of Shem a 3 hour drive south of Yerevan and the tomb of Japheth a 6 hour drive south of Yerevan. We had a good lead on the place where the tomb of Ham was located but we did not get there in the time."

For various reasons I do not want to reveal the name of my source, but I assure you the source is reliable.

[Jack777]

If anyone found it, I think this is a good chance for it.

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/

[Sacrificial Ram]

If anyone found it, I think this is a good chance for it.

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/
Ron WYATT?? RON WYATT?? On my. That guy was a fraud from day one, and totally flake. You really want to promote his insanity as a 'good chance'???

I mean, he is the 'willowtree of archelogy'.

[Jack777]

I don't know about that, I have heard it both ways. I would like to know why you say it though. I have read things that agree with you, but then there is the other side too. I would be interested to know the truth of it though.

[Lion]

Ron Wyatt is dead now, but I have read extensively from his writings For a while he seemed to be believeable, but then he got off onto seeking publicity and he seemed more interested in making a name for himself. too bad for a nice guy to lose his way.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Ron Wyatt is dead now, but I have read extensively from his writings For a while he seemed to be believeable, but then he got off onto seeking publicity and he seemed more interested in making a name for himself. too bad for a nice guy to lose his way.
Ron Wyatt never was believeable. His claims were outragous, with no good evidence or logic behind it.

[mikeledo]

The discovery of the ark would prove creationists WRONG. Mt Ararat is part of a dead volcano chain. The volcanic rock is on TOP of a layer of sedimentary rock creationist claim were laid down by the flood itself. The volcanic rock was formed in the air and not underwater. There is a major difference in the structure of the rocks that it is easy to tell. If the ark landed on Ararat as was supposed by certain Bible supporters, it would have been burned up from the volcanic activity which covered the sedimentary layer on which the ark must have landed.

[Lion]

I am well aquainted Elfred Lee, the artist who painted the most famous of the pictures of the ark on mount Ararat, The picture was painted as described to him by George Agopian, who claimed to have been inside the ark as a child. George is dead and the story cannot be proved. There have been a number of expeditions to Ararat and all have been turned back by militant Kurdish tribesmen who consider the mountain sacred. One expedition was led by John Irwin, the astronaut. Elfred Lee was on that expedition but was delayed a day. When Lee started up he found a lot of stuff abandoned by the men who had gone up the day before and been driven off by the Kurds. That was the last expedition I know of.

Elfred Lee presented a slide show about the boat shaped earth formation te was discovered about the same time. Lee didn't think it was the ark but Ron Wyatt made a great fuss over it. John Baumgardner made radar survey of the site and said it was just an earth formation.

[Arlan]

I've read where some think that Noah's ark could be on a mountain in the south of Turkey, bordering on Syria and Iran I think, it is called Mt. Judi , and this was something David Rohl had a web page on, but it is gone.

I do remember his saying in the article, that there had been an ancient monastery on there that had got hit by lightning, so was no more, and that women from that area would take the pitch from this ark- boat- wood (this is a tale that is told) and rub it on their faces, because they considered it holy. There is even a tale that some people of a certain sect would sacrifice yearly on an altar that Noah was supposed to have built. The only thing that makes me think this could be possible is that they say there were records of this place before 1300 apparently in the church. Anyone in the official Greek Orthodox or Catholic church know anything about this?

This still fits the Mountains of Ararat

There is one big problem of the Mt. Ararat as being the Mt. noah had landed on. The Smithsonian Ins. did a study of all the maps that they have copies of and many date back thousands of years but the oldes map with the name of Mt. Ararat on it, only dates back 200 years. We have this legend that is about 5000 years old, but only the last 200 years this mount is named on any map. Someone is pulling our leg when they say they are going to find it on present day Ararat. To speculate of finding it there is a waist of time and money. arlan b

[Meh_Gerbil]

It probably wouldn't change a thing.

If you can look at a child and see evolution then an old boat wouldn't change a thing.

If you can look at the Scriptures and see lies, you'd see the same thing looking at a boat.

People actaully saw Christ perform miracles and still didn't believe -- you could find Noah's ark and it could be full of dino poop and the theory of evolution and the life of secularism wouldn't change an iota.

[Hitch]

This was over the news yesterday on several outlets. Here's the only story online I could find with the referenced satellite images:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38220

Also, here's a link to the 1949 photos that remained classified for years. This article was written before the recent photos were taken, but if I'm reading it right, it's of the same anomaly:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-1.html

Ok, here's my question. I know it's HIGHLY speculative, but what if this turns out to be a huge boat 16,000 feet up on a mountain? I know. . . let's wait and see, but what fun is that?

What kind of reaction from society would it garner? From different quarters?

Just speculating.

tizzi
There will always be some who wouldnt believe even if they witnessed the resurrection.







It probably wouldn't change a thing.

If you can look at a child and see evolution then an old boat wouldn't change a thing.

If you can look at the Scriptures and see lies, you'd see the same thing looking at a boat.

People actaully saw Christ perform miracles and still didn't believe -- you could find Noah's ark and it could be full of dino poop and the theory of evolution and the life of secularism wouldn't change an iota. I didnt see this until after I had posted, PERF!

[Piebald]

(Assuming that the saga of Noah's Ark occured exactly, literally, as described in Genesis)

... why would Noah just abandon the boat when its lumber could be used to create housing for him and his family?

[Teallaura]

(Assuming that the saga of Noah's Ark occured exactly, literally, as described in Genesis)

... why would Noah just abandon the boat when its lumber could be used to create housing for him and his family?


'Cause the mountain was too high. Most sightings on Ararat are at 15,000 feet - and the Ark would have been as big as a modern ship. It's a whole lot easier to climb down the mountain and use the wood found down there (lots of drift wood, in theory at least) than haul what must have been very heavy beams down 15,000 feet.

(<- For Hamster: note the spacing! :teeth:)

It's the same problem with the 'they'd have used it by now' theory - it's not worth the effort it would take to haul it down. Other than as artifacts (amulets et al) the wood (if there) is so inaccessible that it would never be cost effective to bring it all down, even in smaller chunks. The one reported attempt at bringing down a small piece (probably the size of maybe 3 ft of a 2x6 or 2x8) the climbers ended up having to cut it into smaller pieces because it was too hard to climb with (at those elevations and climbing conditions, that is a fully plausible story).

Also, it wouldn't have to freeze through within a short time to be preserved - bacteria aren't going to be as active at those heights (It gets cold at 15,000 feet!). What reports there are about the wood all agree that it is unusually heavy (again, consistent with expectations of an actual Ark). Thick heavy old wood does not decay anywhere near that rapidly. The Mayflower's beams still exist under much less favorable conditions for preservation (it was recycled into a barn - yes, really).

If a ship that served as long as the Mayflower (a lot more that the few months the Ark would have been in service) can survive more than four hundred years in New England where it does get warm enough to let bacteria do their thing well (not to mention termites which would not be on Ararat - or any other mountain that high) then it is not beyond the realm of possibility that heavy old growth (still the most desirable wood for building) beams could survive four thousand years intact in such rarefied heights. Don't know that it did, but I haven't heard a good theory as to why it would be otherwise impossible.

[rogero]

'Cause the mountain was too high. Most sightings on Ararat are at 15,000 feet - and the Ark would have been as big as a modern ship. It's a whole lot easier to climb down the mountain and use the wood found down there (lots of drift wood, in theory at least) than haul what must have been very heavy beams down 15,000 feet.

.. other irrelevant stuff snipped...
[/quote]

Lawdy, Laura -- how fast did those waters retreat? Does a historico-grammatical rendering of the Genesis text yield a particular time figure and indicate where all those Mabbul waters went? And how did that dove find that olive branch so fast? I mean it was only a week after the other dove came back with nothing (Ge 8:8-11).

Things must've been mighty interesting in those days. Maybe there were big holes in the crust where all those Flood waters drained. But, why then don't we find evidence of this volume of water in the outer reaches of Earth today?

Oooh, I know -- it's a miracle!

Who cares if scientists are fooled today? The Good Lord don't care 'bout them anyway. What matters most is that Bible-believin' folks like you understand the true meaning of these Bible passages and issues.

R

P.S.

I read in the Locker Room that you are fond of Horhay's posts. That's scary. :lol:

.

[Teallaura]

Lawdy, Laura -- how fast did those waters retreat? Does a historico-grammatical rendering of the Genesis text yield a particular time figure and indicate where all those Mabbul waters went? And how did that dove find that olive branch so fast? I mean it was only a week after the other dove came back with nothing (Ge 8:8-11).

Things must've been mighty interesting in those days. Maybe there were big holes in the crust where all those Flood waters drained. But, why then don't we find evidence of this volume of water in the outer reaches of Earth today?

Oooh, I know -- it's a miracle!

Who cares if scientists are fooled today? The Good Lord don't care 'bout them anyway. What matters most is that Bible-believin' folks like you understand the true meaning of these Bible passages and issues.

R

P.S.

I read in the Locker Room that you are fond of Horhay's posts. That's scary. :lol:

.

:hmph: Please!

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you cannot reason from a given and cannot seem to get the very simple concept that a truly omnipotent God can do anything He pleases?



On the first point, Hammy specified that we take the Genesis account as literal - so why are you attacking a perfectly valid thesis from that point of view (other than because you have trouble getting the concept of a 'given' through your pointy head)?


On the second, I wasn't giving a play by play - and your contention is purely absurd. What part of 'omnipotent' do you not understand? Given (hopefully you've worked this one out by now) an omnipotent God, science does not logically trump His omnipotent (in case you forgot the omnipotent part again) ability to intervene in nature any way He wants.

Scientific 'laws' aren't like moral laws - there's not an ethical or moral reason not to break them (human inability to do so notwithstanding) - hence 'science' (the very bad brand you expouse) does not rule out 'miracle'. Unless, of course, you do something logically stupid and rule out the source of that miracle - like you just did - an omnipotent God!


You must really stink at DnD... :no:


I haven't a clue where the 'Bible believing' comment came from - are you just guessing at what other people think/believe or has it ever crossed your mind that maybe reading the actual post comprehensively might help? The sad thing there is that you actually are capable of comprehending English - it seems to be the gist of the argument that you can't follow - or just chose not to, more likely.

And on the last nasty little remark of yours, at least CO can develop and defend a reasoned argument - all I ever see you do is name calling and really stupid analysis. Go back to grammar - you're actually good at that! As far as logic and half way reasonable arguments on science go - you really haven't done it thus far.

(Dismissive tone) Go away now, you bother me... unless you'd like to try without your usual nastiness.... otherwise, quit wasting my time.

[Meh_Gerbil]

:hmph: Please!

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you cannot reason from a given and cannot seem to get the very simple concept that a truly omnipotent God can do anything He pleases?



On the first point, Hammy specified that we take the Genesis account as literal - so why are you attacking a perfectly valid thesis from that point of view (other than because you have trouble getting the concept of a 'given' through your pointy head)?


On the second, I wasn't giving a play by play - and your contention is purely absurd. What part of 'omnipotent' do you not understand? Given (hopefully you've worked this one out by now) an omnipotent God, science does not logically trump His omnipotent (in case you forgot the omnipotent part again) ability to intervene in nature any way He wants.

Scientific 'laws' aren't like moral laws - there's not an ethical or moral reason not to break them (human inability to do so notwithstanding) - hence 'science' (the very bad brand you expouse) does not rule out 'miracle'. Unless, of course, you do something logically stupid and rule out the source of that miracle - like you just did - an omnipotent God!


You must really stink at DnD... :no:


I haven't a clue where the 'Bible believing' comment came from - are you just guessing at what other people think/believe or has it ever crossed your mind that maybe reading the actual post comprehensively might help? The sad thing there is that you actually are capable of comprehending English - it seems to be the gist of the argument that you can't follow - or just chose not to, more likely.

And on the last nasty little remark of yours, at least CO can develop and defend a reasoned argument - all I ever see you do is name calling and really stupid analysis. Go back to grammar - you're actually good at that! As far as logic and half way reasonable arguments on science go - you really haven't done it thus far.

(Dismissive tone) Go away now, you bother me... unless you'd like to try without your usual nastiness.... otherwise, quit wasting my time.

Ouch.
I love a good rant.
Pearls and a paper bag.... breath slowly into the bag.... :lol:

[Teallaura]

Ouch.
I love a good rant.
Pearls and a paper bag.... breath slowly into the bag.... :lol:

Okay, I'm not in the best mood right now.... however, thanks for the pearls - and the bag. I really needed the bag....

:outtie:

[Meh_Gerbil]

Okay, I'm not in the best mood right now.... however, thanks for the pearls - and the bag. I really needed the bag....

:outtie:

Don't feel bad.
In fact, you should embrace the dark side even as I have...the power to rant can be yours... and you'll use it for good, YES, you'll be different... you'll be the one that uses it for good!

*makes a note not to get onto Teal's bad side*

[Piebald]

(<- For Hamster: note the spacing! :teeth:)


Thanks :teeth:

Also, I never thought about the mountain height... but I haven't put a lot of thought into Noah's Ark beyond it's soteriological message, I guess. :smile:

[rogero]

:hmph: Please!

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you cannot reason from a given and cannot seem to get the very simple concept that a truly omnipotent God can do anything He pleases?


Swell. I know I sound stupid to you and your Fundie-mentalist friends.

To address your question -- then a truly omnipotent God who would make the evidence left behind for us poor ignorant scientifically-interested slobs to study today look like something different than it seems (looks like long ages, it's really just 6000 years, no evidence of a global flood 4500 years ago, etc.) is actually a cruel deceiving trickster. Why would you want to worship a despicable demiurge like that? I sure don't.


On the first point, Hammy specified that we take the Genesis account as literal - so why are you attacking a perfectly valid thesis from that point of view (other than because you have trouble getting the concept of a 'given' through your pointy head)?


The issue was if Noah's Ark were found. I was addressing the physical particulars. Apparently you either weren't able to comprehend my point.


On the second, I wasn't giving a play by play - and your contention is purely absurd. What part of 'omnipotent' do you not understand? Given (hopefully you've worked this one out by now) an omnipotent God, science does not logically trump His omnipotent (in case you forgot the omnipotent part again) ability to intervene in nature any way He wants.


I giess that also makes Him a liar if He can't sort and classify the evidence that we're able to observe today in a way that supports the exact interpretation of Genesis that you espouse. Why would you want to worship a liar? Do you belong to a spiritual country club whose membership oath involves worshipping a lying demi-god?


Scientific 'laws' aren't like moral laws - there's not an ethical or moral reason not to break them (human inability to do so notwithstanding) - hence 'science' (the very bad brand you expouse) does not rule out 'miracle'. Unless, of course, you do something logically stupid and rule out the source of that miracle - like you just did - an omnipotent God!

I can't disagree with you. This is the "Science Building" part of Tweb, and I was under the impression that we were discussing scientific (i.e., physical) evidences for things.

Again I agree -- if an ominpotent God wants to do something or make something in the past look like something else with a "naturalistic" explanation, then so be it. Amen. Why anyone would want to worship a lying deceiver like that is beyond me. I'd rather cast my lot with the skeptics and hope that the real God is out there somewhere to redeem -- maybe by an absurb method like a First-Century Roman cross.

Believe it or not, I'm still a Christian -- in spite of reading and arguing with bluebood Fundie-mentalists over the past years. I started out much more Fundie than I am now. Perhaps it's my academic training in both inductive and deductive logic combined with clashing heads with diehard scientifically-illiterate Fundies here on TWeb that has changed my mind.


You must really stink at DnD... :no:

I was interested in this in the early 80's, but I was too much a math nerd at the time. Quite frankly, I'm not really good at much of anything. :sigh:


I haven't a clue where the 'Bible believing' comment came from - are you just guessing at what other people think/believe or has it ever crossed your mind that maybe reading the actual post comprehensively might help? The sad thing there is that you actually are capable of comprehending English - it seems to be the gist of the argument that you can't follow - or just chose not to, more likely.


Oh, dear! Have some tea and chocolate, pet your cat, watch a Lifetime movie, and calm down.

Apparently I comprehended the posts to which I responded better than you. The context was the Ark on Mt. Ararat. I interjected a query regarding the rapid diminution of the waters. It's curious you didn't address this. What you posted is typical YEC ad hoc screed. If you're offended by this, so be it.


And on the last nasty little remark of yours, at least CO can develop and defend a reasoned argument - all I ever see you do is name calling and really stupid analysis. Go back to grammar - you're actually good at that! As far as logic and half way reasonable arguments on science go - you really haven't done it thus far.


Grammar and articulation is what CO is good at. I've seen nothing by him in the NS areas that is other than boring tit-for-tat rhetoric and blow. I refuse to address him because I find him a thunderous bore. I know this must sting you, since you list CO as one of your more interesting posters, as per your Locker Room post.


(Dismissive tone) Go away now, you bother me... unless you'd like to try without your usual nastiness.... otherwise, quit wasting my time.

I know you don't like me. I don't concur with your naive scientifically-informed view of origins. This is a real threat to your little world down there in the Fundie-mentalist stronghold of 'Bama. The fact that you find Horhay and the Cap'n interesting posters is very telling.

My adivice to you if you wish to participate constructively in the origins issue is to either learn more about science (not just propaganda from YEC "ministries" -- what a slimey misuse of the word that is!).

R

P.S. If the kind of dialogue we're having regarding the origins issue on Tweb is representative of the views of the adult voting public in democracies worldwide, then God help us all.

[Ruth]

15,000 is nothing. Mt. Everest is almost twice that height at 29,000+ feet. Remember the flood myth says the entire planet was underwater. If you stood at the beach today and looked up to see a jetliner overhead, that's how deep the water would have been to cover the Earth. Five and a half miles over your head!

[Hitch]

15,000 is nothing. Mt. Everest is almost twice that height at 29,000+ feet. Remember the flood myth says the entire planet was underwater. If you stood at the beach today and looked up to see a jetliner overhead, that's how deep the water would have been to cover the Earth. Five and a half miles over your head!Kidna silly like that coming back from the dead myth eh?

[Teallaura]

15,000 is nothing. Mt. Everest is almost twice that height at 29,000+ feet. Remember the flood myth says the entire planet was underwater. If you stood at the beach today and looked up to see a jetliner overhead, that's how deep the water would have been to cover the Earth. Five and a half miles over your head!


Um, sweetie, did you read the post or just stop when you hit 15,000 ft?

Let's try a mental experiment: You are a mountain climber on a very difficult mountain (which coincidentally, by all accounts, Ararat is! :teeth:). You are going to climb to 15,000 ft (bring your oxygen tank!) and pick up a beam from an ancient HUGE vessel. I'll be nice - beam would probably be on the magnitude of 8x12 and probably a decent eight to ten feet - if not longer (the Ark didn't need to be rounded for a keel - it wasn't being steered - and ship builders easily used such long planks - no reason not to assume the beams couldn't be as long or longer) - but you'd never be able to lift an oak beam that big, so let's give you a 4x4 six feet long. Now, on steep terrain, climbing a dangerous mountain, dodging crevasses, et cetera - how you gonna carry that thing down the mountain?

The argument wasn't for the reality of the Flood (do any of you folks read this stuff long enough to figure out what is actually being argued? I mean, really!) but for the practicality of hauling that much lumber down 15,000 feet of mountainside. My argument is two-fold: it is too difficult to be accomplished for the entire mass of the Ark; and it is not cost effective for any of the cultures that have occupied that region to do so. Now, do you see a flaw in my actual argument -or are you going to persist in arguing with me on a point I never made? (Ranting at someone for making that same mistake is not the same thing as legitimately making a point. The best you could come up with here is that I made reference to his argument on that irrelevant, to the actual argument, point.)

[Ruth]

Kidna silly like that coming back from the dead myth eh? Yeah that's pretty silly too. Almost as silly as thinking you could put all the worlds species on a wooden boat built with 8x12's. Plus cover the planet in rain, and then not leave a trace of it. :lol: Silly indeed. Just another bedtime story to tell children.

[Jnthn]

Yeah that's pretty silly too. Almost as silly as thinking you could put all the worlds species on a wooden boat built with 8x12's. Plus cover the planet in rain, and then not leave a trace of it. :lol: Silly indeed. Just another bedtime story to tell children.

Ruth - I'd like to suggest that you don't post in this thread until you can demonstrate you have a grasp of basic science, let alone a basic competence in Christian theology: You've managed to post two replies that have the same problem at heart.

You've assumed a steady state.

You have ASSUMED that Everest was the highest mountain in Noah's time. You have ASSUMED that Everest was the same size then as now (Hint - try looking up the subject areas of erosion and plate tectonics). You are also implicitly assuming that there were as many species then as now (roll back the clock - there were fewer species in antiquity, something that YEC and EvoFundie alike agree on.

J

[Soundsurfr]

Ruth - I'd like to suggest that you don't post in this thread until you can demonstrate you have a grasp of basic science, let alone a basic competence in Christian theology: You've managed to post two replies that have the same problem at heart.

You've assumed a steady state.

Not necessarily.

You have ASSUMED that Everest was the highest mountain in Noah's time. You have ASSUMED that Everest was the same size then as now (Hint - try looking up the subject areas of erosion and plate tectonics).

OK then. How long has Everest been the highest mountain, and how long ago did the flood take place?

You are also implicitly assuming that there were as many species then as now (roll back the clock - there were fewer species in antiquity, something that YEC and EvoFundie alike agree on.

"Scientifically" speaking, how many species do you think there were at that time?


Jnthn, I think it is you that has a need to get a better grasp on basic science.

[Ruth]

You gotta be kidding me. Plate tectonics pushing Mt. Everest up 15,000 feet above the ark in a few thousand years? The Himalayas are growing at a rate of 1 inch a year. Not thousands of feet a year. Crack open a real book of facts. I suggest you don't post period till you get a basic grasp of reality.
29,000 ft. divided by 40 days equals 725 feet of rain a day. :lol:

[Jnthn]

Not necessarily.

Yes precisely. How else am I to interpret the assertion that Everest hasn't changed in over 2000 years?


OK then. How long has Everest been the highest mountain, and how long ago did the flood take place?

Hardly relevant, but since I'm feeling generous, Wikipedia reports that the first measurement took place in 1859 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest) which basically leaves Ruth in the position of demonstrating that the peak has not changed in height in over 1800 years - and that's me being hyper cautious with dates. Again from wikipedia, the flood is dated circa 2500BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark).

So are you, like Ruth, asserting in that over 4000 years of human history, regardless of whether or in your opinion that the Genesis flood took place, Everest was not subject to forces geologic or erosive?

"Scientifically" speaking, how many species do you think there were at that time?

Ok; I'll need a baseline to work from - how many species are there currently? I'll respond to your question to the same extent of precision you answer this one.

Jnthn, I think it is you that has a need to get a better grasp on basic science.

Firm enough, thanks. Firm enough to understand the basics of erosion and geology.

J

[Jnthn]

You gotta be kidding me. Plate tectonics pushing Mt. Everest up 15,000 feet above the ark in a few thousand years? The Himalayas are growing at a rate of 1 inch a year. Not thousands of feet a year. Crack open a real book of facts. I suggest you don't post period till you get a basic grasp of reality.
29,000 ft. divided by 40 days equals 725 feet of rain a day. :lol:

Ooooh, bad luck...you've done it again!

You've ASSUMED that Everest has changed it's height by a given height in a given period. You've ASSUMED a constant rate of change in the height of Everest 4000 years later than conservative dates place the Noahic flood, and to cap it all you've ASSUMED that the "40 days and 40 nights" is a LITERAL period of time, as opposed to a semitic term indicating a prolonged period of time analogous to the phrase "ages and ages" in English.

Sheesh :doh:

J

[bandecoot]

Ooooh, bad luck...you've done it again!

You've ASSUMED that Everest has changed it's height by a given height in a given period. You've ASSUMED a constant rate of change in the height of Everest 4000 years later than conservative dates place the Noahic flood, and to cap it all you've ASSUMED that the "40 days and 40 nights" is a LITERAL period of time, as opposed to a semitic term indicating a prolonged period of time analogous to the phrase "ages and ages" in English.

Sheesh :doh:

J


And this is bad ...how. Given that we have observed rates of change, why not proceed with that information. Are you perhaps suggesting that the Rates of tectonic movement has slowed? On what do you base this assumption?

Are you suggesting that the bible is not literal? Then given a lack of any evidence for a Global Flood at all, why even bother with this story?

What in fact was the height of Everest at the purported time of the Flood? On what do you base the answer?

One other small detail how to you account for a country in between the Indian and Pacific Oceans with 40 000 years of human occupancy, and an ecosystem made up of marsupials? You may have heard of the place, its called Australia.

[Soundsurfr]

Yes precisely. How else am I to interpret the assertion that Everest hasn't changed in over 2000 years?

I saw no such assertion. I only saw an assertion that Everest was higher than Ararat at the time of the flood. That does not imply an assumption of steady state. It only implies an assumption that the heights remained constant relative to each other.

Hardly relevant, but since I'm feeling generous, Wikipedia reports that the first measurement took place in 1859 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest) which basically leaves Ruth in the position of demonstrating that the peak has not changed in height in over 1800 years - and that's me being hyper cautious with dates.

My question, namely what do you believe were the relative heights of those two mountains at the time of the flood, were entirely relevant based on your comment. You did not answer the question. If you are asserting that the peak heights of both mountains have changed over the past 1800 years, tell us what your estimates are and what evidence you use to arrive at them. Remember, you admonished Ruth to get a basic understanding of science. Show us that you have one.

Again from wikipedia, the flood is dated circa 2500BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark).

So you see Wikipedia as a source of scientific information? Fascinating.

So are you, like Ruth, asserting in that over 4000 years of human history, regardless of whether or in your opinion that the Genesis flood took place, Everest was not subject to forces geologic or erosive?

Not at all. But I would like to see some scientific data that indicates what level of changes, if any, may have taken place at Everest over that time before I assert anything. Got any?

Ok; I'll need a baseline to work from - how many species are there currently? I'll respond to your question to the same extent of precision you answer this one.

I'm not sure why that's necessary for you to answer the question, but I'll look it up for you. You have alleged that there were few enough species at the time of Noah for all of them to fit on the ark. I thought maybe you had an idea of how many that was.

OK, according to the Environmental Literacy Council:

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/58.html

The United Nations Environment Programme (http://www.unep.org/)'s (UNEP) Global Biodiversity Assessment is often cited, which estimates the number of described species at approximately 1.75 million. A study done by prominent biologist E.O. Wilson and others estimate known species at approximately 1.4 million. Another more recent study estimates the number at approximately 1.5 million.

So I guess it's fair enough to say that there are between 1.4 and 1.75 million species alive today. How many do you suppose were alive 2500 years ago?

Firm enough, thanks.

Forgive me, but I'm skeptical. We'll see, I suppose. You also have not addressed Ruth's question about where all the water went.

[Teallaura]

It probably wouldn't change a thing.

If you can look at a child and see evolution then an old boat wouldn't change a thing.

If you can look at the Scriptures and see lies, you'd see the same thing looking at a boat.

People actaully saw Christ perform miracles and still didn't believe -- you could find Noah's ark and it could be full of dino poop and the theory of evolution and the life of secularism wouldn't change an iota.

MG,

I respectfully submit the last page and a half of this thread as evidence in support of this thesis.

-T

[Jnthn]

And this is bad ...how. Given that we have observed rates of change, why not proceed with that information. Are you perhaps suggesting that the Rates of tectonic movement has slowed? On what do you base this assumption?

Extrapolation is observation's poor cousin - that was the point I was pushing, nothing more. Personally, I place little to no value in forecasting forward or extrapolating back. This is probably a personality defect of mine. I usually overestimate project costs and timescales at work. Makes me look good when I deliver early and under budget :lol: . Well, most of the time...:blush:

Are you suggesting that the bible is not literal? Then given a lack of any evidence for a Global Flood at all, why even bother with this story?

I'm not a literalist, I'm a contextualist - I read the text in the idiom it is presented in. I'm happy to take the Genesis record as history.

What in fact was the height of Everest at the purported time of the Flood? On what do you base the answer?

The very question I've asked Ruth.

One other small detail how to you account for a country in between the Indian and Pacific Oceans with 40 000 years of human occupancy, and an ecosystem made up of marsupials? You may have heard of the place, its called Australia.

My flip remark would be "check the assumptions in your dating mechanisms", but I seem to be over-using the word "assumption" of late. I defer to my fellow YECs with scientific bent's to discuss the finer detail of dating mechanisms.

J

[Jnthn]

I saw no such assertion. I only saw an assertion that Everest was higher than Ararat at the time of the flood. That does not imply an assumption of steady state. It only implies an assumption that the heights remained constant relative to each other.

Implications are subjective. Mebbe Ruth should have been clearer in her intent.

My question, namely what do you believe were the relative heights of those two mountains at the time of the flood, were entirely relevant based on your comment. You did not answer the question. If you are asserting that the peak heights of both mountains have changed over the past 1800 years, tell us what your estimates are and what evidence you use to arrive at them. Remember, you admonished Ruth to get a basic understanding of science. Show us that you have one.

I'm asserting that erosion and geology are but two, high level natural forces that have been observed to act on our planet, unless of course you are asserting that Everest has been given a waiver :wink:

So you see Wikipedia as a source of scientific information? Fascinating

Not always. I try not to treat it as a lumpen whole, but on an article by article basis. There's also the added convenience of it being on-line. There ain't no way I was going to post something from Encarta...I'd get JPH-whacked!

Not at all. But I would like to see some scientific data that indicates what level of changes, if any, may have taken place at Everest over that time before I assert anything. Got any?

Google is your friend.


I'm not sure why that's necessary for you to answer the question, but I'll look it up for you. You have alleged that there were few enough species at the time of Noah for all of them to fit on the ark. I thought maybe you had an idea of how many that was.

OK, according to the Environmental Literacy Council:

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/58.html

The United Nations Environment Programme (http://www.unep.org/)'s (UNEP) Global Biodiversity Assessment is often cited, which estimates the number of described species at approximately 1.75 million. A study done by prominent biologist E.O. Wilson and others estimate known species at approximately 1.4 million. Another more recent study estimates the number at approximately 1.5 million.

So I guess it's fair enough to say that there are between 1.4 and 1.75 million species alive today. How many do you suppose were alive 2500 years ago?


I don't have enough information to make a robust estimate, but just for a quick giggle: based on observations such as the explosion of breeds in domestic animals, I came up with an initial figure of about 8000 (1.5Mil / 400 variants), which I was pleased to find is roughly the figure that the author of "Noah's Ark - A feasibility study" posits, with better working shown.

Forgive me, but I'm skeptical. We'll see, I suppose. You also have not addressed Ruth's question about where all the water went.

This AiG article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp) is a good starting point for discussions.

J

[Ruth]

Forgive me, but I'm skeptical. We'll see, I suppose. You also have not addressed Ruth's question about where all the water went. The supreme deity must have opened up the "windows of heaven" again and tossed the water back out. :lol: That and he pulled the plug on the "fountains of the deep". :lol: The water rushing down the drain made the Grand Canyon, drowned the dinosaurs, and made all the fossils. :lol:
It's just one of many different flood myths.
"Many great deluges have taken place during the nine thousand years" since Athens and Atlantis were preeminent. Destruction by fire and other catastrophes was also common. In these floods, water rose from below, destroying city dwellers but not mountain people. The floods, especially the third great flood before Deucalion, washed away most of Athens' fertile soil.
Plato

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html None have any basis in fact. Cute bedtime stories that most children grow out of.

[Rowland]

I read a book some years ago authored by a man who was in the merchant marine. According to this guy, Noah's Ark has been found. It was found mostly as an outline left in the ground by a decayed ship. It was not found on the top of Mt. Ararat. It was found in the foothills along with very large ancient stone anchors. The anchors are rectangular in shape, about 8 feet tall, and have a hole in one end for a rope or ropes. Noah dropped these anchors in preparation for beaching his ship. Noah wouldn't have beached his ship near the top of any mountain as he would not have wanted to take the risk of being isolated on some island. He wouldn't have known it was the top of an inland mountain or a mountain coming out of the sea. He beached his ship when he was confident that he was in an inland area.

This ship, Noah"s Ark, was a giant reed boat, built like the reed boats found in Egypt and on the shores of Lake Tititaka in Bolivia, only much larger. The pitch used to seal the boat was a type of concrete. Metal clasps were also used to hold the boat together.

The author says that the Turkish government was building a road to the place and making it a tourist destination. He couldn't get much publicity because his description of Noah's Ark and where it was beached did not fit the preconceived notions of the religious people and did not appeal to the secular crowd for obvious reasons. I don't have anything new to say about the discovery or the theory. The Mt. Ararat area is militarily unstable. Rebel Kurds pose a risk to outsiders so the tourist idea was probably shelved.

Noah's flood was world wide-if you go by the Bible. There would have been no need for an ark had the flood been less than world wide. Noah's Ark did not have every species on board. Only every kind. So a pair of wolves or dogs could have served as the ancestors to all the various canine species. Creationists believe that the basic kinds of animals- feline, canine, arachnid, etc.- are the common ancestors to the millions of species. The basic kinds of animals (I'm not sure what modern term would or could be used-genus?) contained all the DNA coding to "evolve" into the many species. These DNA messages are placed in the animal by God, not by evolution. The basic spider then can evolve into many different species depending on the environment.

Reason dictates that the preflood earth had no high mountains and no deep oceans. When you sail or fly over the oceans you are looking at the water of Noah's flood. Some parts of the ocean are 7 miles deep. The world's high mountains are recent structures as is shown by the fact that top soil continues to slide off such moutain chains as the Andes, burying cities under tons of mud. The millions of fossils that exist on the earth is solid proof of a world wide flood. Animals usually decay when they die; they don't readily fossilize. The normal word for flood is not used in the Greek NT when the author refers to Noah's flood. The word used is something like "cataclysmo", cataclysm in English. It was way more than just a flood. The disruption to the surface of the earth was gigantic and the earth has still not quieted down. Earthquakes are diminishing even though we may be in a period of a temporary uptick. Massive walls of mud caught the dinosaurs as they were trying to outrun the rising waters, instantly killing and burying them for future evolutionists to find and ask: Where is the evidence for a world wide flood?

Those who do not believe that this world wide catastrophe actually happened will just have to wait for the next one, which I believe is coming soon. I'll even make a prediction: another world wide catastrophe will occur in the year 2010, based on my calculation of biblical math. This is not a prophecy, but is the result of my study of the Bible's chronology which seems to follow a numerical pattern.

Rowland

[rach12]

I read a book some years ago authored by a man who was in the merchant marine. According to this guy, Noah's Ark has been found. It was found mostly as an outline left in the ground by a decayed ship. It was not found on the top of Mt. Ararat. It was found in the foothills along with very large ancient stone anchors. The anchors are rectangular in shape, about 8 feet tall, and have a hole in one end for a rope or ropes. Noah dropped these anchors in preparation for beaching his ship. Noah wouldn't have beached his ship near the top of any mountain as he would not have wanted to take the risk of being isolated on some island. He wouldn't have known it was the top of an inland mountain or a mountain coming out of the sea. He beached his ship when he was confident that he was in an inland area.

This ship, Noah"s Ark, was a giant reed boat, built like the reed boats found in Egypt and on the shores of Lake Tititaka in Bolivia, only much larger. The pitch used to seal the boat was a type of concrete. Metal clasps were also used to hold the boat together.
What evidence suggested it was NOAH'S Ark, rather than just another reed boat?


Reason dictates that the preflood earth had no high mountains and no deep oceans.
If there were no high mountains, where did all the sediment come from that comprises the thousands of feet of rocks we find all over the globe?

And if no high mountains were present, why don't we have hundreds or thousands of Grand Canyons? All that water is going to do some pretty massive eroding.

Erosion only happens down to sea level with the highest elevation being eroded the fastest and the lower elevations acting as depsitional centers.




When you sail or fly over the oceans you are looking at the water of Noah's flood. Some parts of the ocean are 7 miles deep.
I thought you said the oceans were not deep. How did they become deep?



The world's high mountains are recent structures as is shown by the fact that top soil continues to slide off such moutain chains as the Andes, burying cities under tons of mud.
What caused the mountains to rise thousands of feet in 2000+ years?

As for the topsoil sliding off... that's a new one. There are much better explanations for why we have landslides, such as oversteepened slopes, dip slopes, and lots of rain (usually coupled with bad geology, soils, or other unconsolidated/weakly consolidated material).


The millions of fossils that exist on the earth is solid proof of a world wide flood. Animals usually decay when they die; they don't readily fossilize.
A world-wide flood would probably not sort every single one of the fossils by the sizes of their appendages, by the presence of a tail or not, by their ability to flower, or by the shapes of their leaves.

Organisms swept away and deposited by a flood would be chaotic and concentrated in basins and against high spots. You should find fossil graveyards full of all sorts of beasts and vegetation, not discrete accumulations of nests with unbroken neatly organized eggs, spider tracks, complete skeletons buried in shale or other fine sediments, etc.

Some fossil occurrences are undoubtedly the result of local floods and quick burial, others are buried in lakes, rivers, swamps, shallow marine environment, in the desert, on sand dunes, etc. And decayed organisms can be fossilized you know. Most times all we have left are the bones with no evidence of skin, fur, hair, or feathers.



The normal word for flood is not used in the Greek NT when the author refers to Noah's flood. The word used is something like "cataclysmo", cataclysm in English. It was way more than just a flood.
And I'm sure if you ask the people who lived through the December 2004 tsunami, they'd tell you that was "more than just a flood," too. Not a very convincing argument.



The disruption to the surface of the earth was gigantic and the earth has still not quieted down. Earthquakes are diminishing even though we may be in a period of a temporary uptick.
Oh yeah? Care to show us some real data that earthquakes have been gradually diminishing since the 'Flood?'



Massive walls of mud caught the dinosaurs as they were trying to outrun the rising waters, instantly killing and burying them for future evolutionists to find and ask: Where is the evidence for a world wide flood?
Oh please. And I suppose there were birds and rabbits and humans sitting on their heads, too, huh? :lol:

Don't kid yourself, geologists can tell the difference between sediment that was deposited in calm waters and sediment deposited by floods and raging water.



Those who do not believe that this world wide catastrophe actually happened will just have to wait for the next one, which I believe is coming soon.
I think there is most assuredly a world-wide disaster in our future, just as there have been thousands upon thousands in the past 4.5 billion years of earth history.

[Ruth]

Reason dictates that the preflood earth had no high mountains and no deep oceans. Reason?! A grown up believing in fairy tales isn't reason. You're saying the world had no land higher than what? A few feet above sea level? Even then to flood all the land masses would require more water than there is on earth. Maybe there was only a few square miles where Noah lived. :lol: Then all the mountains sprung up overnight? A few thousand years is overnight geologically speaking.
Mt. Everest is five and a half miles high. The Mariana Trench is seven miles deep. (6.8) Twelve miles of uplift and subduction in a few thousand years?! Put down the book of fairy tales. Crack open a science book or two.

On December 8, 1999, NASA declared: "New Height for Mt. Everest: 29,035 ft. (8850 meters)". This announcement was the result of measurements made with Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers on May 5, 1999, from the top of Mount Everest.
GPS observations of Mount Everest had already been carried out during the four preceding years. During these four years, no measurable change in the height of Mount Everest was seen. However, the mountain appears to be moving northeastward at a rate of approximately 2.4 inches (6 cm) per year. The same geological forces that move the mountain horizontally can also move it vertically.

Nasa is real. Noah.....is a story.

[Rowland]

I don't know how high the preflood mountains were. They could have easily been put under water even if they were 4,000 feet high. I read somewhere that the earth has enough water that if the earth was completely level or smooth the earth would be covered by several thousand feet of water. In any event, about 75% of the current earth is flooded over with several thousand feet of water. The question of 'where did all the water go?' is not difficult to answer. It's still here.

Secondly, in the biblical account of where the water came from we can read between the lines to see that some really terrible catastrophes other than the flood struck the earth at the time of the flood. I believe that the rain came from a collision between the earth and a comet or a cloud of icy debris of some sort. This bombardment of the earth by rock and ice from space caused untold damage to the earth's crust in addition to flooding the earth with melted comet ice. As the earth's crust shifted and buckled, super volcanoes erupted in many places throwing up trillions of tons of water onto the surface of the earth, water that had been trapped miles under the earth's surface at the time of its formation-the fountains of the great deep. For forty days ice from space fell into the earth's atomosphere melting on the way down.

The shallow ocean basins collapsed into the space left by the magma and water thrown up onto the earth's surface. The water ran off the land filling the newly deepened basins and permanently covering large areas of the earth that had not been under water before the flood. This water was almost hot coming as it did from deep in the earth's crust and from ice from space which had been heated up by the friction between the ice/water and the atmosphere as it fell through the entire depth of the earth's atmosphere. This hot water is the source of the earth's ice age-only one ice age. It took a tremendous amount of heat energy to lift the unimaginable amounts of water, which the ice sheets contained, from the ocean to fall as snow on the land surfaces of the earth. Never again would this energy be available to form mile plus high sheets of ice covering vast areas of the earth. Much of the water in the world's oceans is now very cold. The sun is able to heat only a small portion of the ocean's surface. If more of the colder waters of the deep ocean could be made to well upward to the surface, the earth's atmosphere would cool appreciably, I think, thus reducing overall rainfall for a time. The overall cooling of the oceans is the direct cause of desertification. The heat of the atomosphere is a secondary cause.

There was only one continent before the flood. The energy imparted to the earth's crust by the bombardment from space and the volcanic eruptions broke up the continent causing a vast portion to float westward to become the great islands in the great ocean that we call North and South America. It appeared that these lands were sinking instead of moving westward thus giving rise to the Atlantis myth. If this is the source of the Atlantis myth then it would seem that the rapid continental drift and mountain building did not occur during the flood or immediately after, but possibly centuries after the flood when the earth's crust finally broke under all the the accumulating stress.

The biblical scenario of earth's geological history is definitely out of sync with the modern scientific interpretation of the formation of earth's geological structures. I definitely agree that there is a fairy tale to be found here. Whether the fairy tale is being told by modern science or by the Bible is what we are debating about. Either the scientists are wrong or the authors of the Bible are wrong. Both cannot be correct. We ordinary non-scientist human mortals have a lot more riding on the Bible than we have on modern science. If modern science is correct then the textual support of the faith of millions is invalid. If the Bible is correct then the faith of only a few human beings called scientists is destroyed. The scientists would lose only their particular understanding of the physical universe. We believers would lose our hope for the future, would lose our Father God. In my belief system, the Bible is the only known preserved verbal communication between God and humankind that we humans have. Without the Bible I could still believe in the existence of God but I would be left without any communication from Him. (God is not a male, not a "he". He is pure spirit so He has no gender. I use the male pronouns "he" and "him" only because I do not want to use the English word that has no gender implications: IT. "It" has no gender. "It" doesn't sound right as we believers believe in a personal God, not in an impersonal force of some kind as was featured in the Star Wars sagas. The use of the word "Father" for God implies gender, but this implication is wrong. God is Father in the sense of being our protector and being in a position of authority along with being the source of human life. He is in no way a male person.)

Rowland

[shunyadragon]

I read a book some years ago authored by a man who was in the merchant marine. According to this guy, Noah's Ark has been found. It was found mostly as an outline left in the ground by a decayed ship. It was not found on the top of Mt. Ararat. It was found in the foothills along with very large ancient stone anchors. The anchors are rectangular in shape, about 8 feet tall, and have a hole in one end for a rope or ropes. Noah dropped these anchors in preparation for beaching his ship. Noah wouldn't have beached his ship near the top of any mountain as he would not have wanted to take the risk of being isolated on some island. He wouldn't have known it was the top of an inland mountain or a mountain coming out of the sea. He beached his ship when he was confident that he was in an inland area.

This ship, Noah"s Ark, was a giant reed boat, built like the reed boats found in Egypt and on the shores of Lake Tititaka in Bolivia, only much larger. The pitch used to seal the boat was a type of concrete. Metal clasps were also used to hold the boat together.

The author says that the Turkish government was building a road to the place and making it a tourist destination. He couldn't get much publicity because his description of Noah's Ark and where it was beached did not fit the preconceived notions of the religious people and did not appeal to the secular crowd for obvious reasons. I don't have anything new to say about the discovery or the theory. The Mt. Ararat area is militarily unstable. Rebel Kurds pose a risk to outsiders so the tourist idea was probably shelved.

This of course is heresay until further evidence is produced. It has happened before with no results, and it will likely happen again, like the supposed chariot wheels found in the Red Sea.

Noah's flood was world wide-if you go by the Bible. There would have been no need for an ark had the flood been less than world wide. Noah's Ark did not have every species on board. Only every kind. So a pair of wolves or dogs could have served as the ancestors to all the various canine species. Creationists believe that the basic kinds of animals- feline, canine, arachnid, etc.- are the common ancestors to the millions of species. The basic kinds of animals (I'm not sure what modern term would or could be used-genus?) contained all the DNA coding to "evolve" into the many species. These DNA messages are placed in the animal by God, not by evolution. The basic spider then can evolve into many different species depending on the environment.

Rubbish! Recent genetic studies have easily shown the genetic diversity even within population of single species such as humans cannot be explained in the post-flood time frame, much less the diversity of the world.

Reason dictates that the preflood earth had no high mountains and no deep oceans. When you sail or fly over the oceans you are looking at the water of Noah's flood. Some parts of the ocean are 7 miles deep. The world's high mountains are recent structures as is shown by the fact that top soil continues to slide off such moutain chains as the Andes, burying cities under tons of mud. The millions of fossils that exist on the earth is solid proof of a world wide flood. Animals usually decay when they die; they don't readily fossilize. The normal word for flood is not used in the Greek NT when the author refers to Noah's flood. The word used is something like "cataclysmo", cataclysm in English. It was way more than just a flood. The disruption to the surface of the earth was gigantic and the earth has still not quieted down. Earthquakes are diminishing even though we may be in a period of a temporary uptick.

Your reason may dictate the geography of the world, but the Bible in the Pentateoch describes a different pre-flood world of truely ancient mountains and even (Olam! Olam!) more ancient hills that have erroded over time, and oceans that are deep. You must understand that many species of fish and sea animals require incredably deep oceans to survive.

Geologically the tens of thousands of feet of continuous unbroken cyclic sediments known to Geologists in geologic basins around the world occur without catastrophic events like world floods, that could never have been formed in a flood. We have continuous growth of coral reefs without interuption over a mile thick. We have huge limestone deposites thousands of feet thick that cover vaste regions unbroken and these to have been erroded slowly over time. We have thousands of feet of cyclic coal, sandstone and shale in Appalachia that repeated cycles of coal forming swamps with vaste river systems, beaches, deltas, wind blown deposites, and shallow seas and lake deposites. These cycles repeat over and over again without any sign of a world flood. The vaste river systems found in these deposites are found in different layers.

[/quote] Massive walls of mud caught the dinosaurs as they were trying to outrun the rising waters, instantly killing and burying them for future evolutionists to find and ask: Where is the evidence for a world wide flood?[/quote]

I have travelled around the world and looked at countless rock formations and well logs that agree with the scientific literature of over two hundred years and find no evidence of a world flood.

Those who do not believe that this world wide catastrophe actually happened will just have to wait for the next one, which I believe is coming soon. I'll even make a prediction: another world wide catastrophe will occur in the year 2010, based on my calculation of biblical math. This is not a prophecy, but is the result of my study of the Bible's chronology which seems to follow a numerical pattern.

Since there is no evidence of a previous world flood and the mountains and deep seas remain as described by the Bible, a world flood would still have to be about 5 miles deep.

[ArchaicGuy]

Rowland: Are you refering to book by June Dawes Adrift on Dark Waters? The merchant marine you mentioned is David Fasold. I met him in 1992 in Israel before he was profiled on Unsolved Mysteries about Noah's Ark. Sadly, Fasold passed away from cancer in 1998 or maybe 1999?

[shunyadragon]

Rowland: Are you refering to book by June Dawes Adrift on Dark Waters? The merchant marine you mentioned is David Fasold. I met him in 1992 in Israel before he was profiled on Unsolved Mysteries about Noah's Ark. Sadly, Fasold passed away from cancer in 1998 or maybe 1999?

It sounds like you have had some interesting experiences and travels. I would like to hear more.

[mikeledo]

This of course is heresay until further evidence is produced. It has happened before with no results, and it will likely happen again, like the supposed chariot wheels found in the Red Sea.



Rubbish! Recent genetic studies have easily shown the genetic diversity even within population of single species such as humans cannot be explained in the post-flood time frame, much less the diversity of the world.



Your reason may dictate the geography of the world, but the Bible in the Pentateoch describes a different pre-flood world of truely ancient mountains and even (Olam! Olam!) more ancient hills that have erroded over time, and oceans that are deep. You must understand that many species of fish and sea animals require incredably deep oceans to survive.

Geologically the tens of thousands of feet of continuous unbroken cyclic sediments known to Geologists in geologic basins around the world occur without catastrophic events like world floods, that could never have been formed in a flood. We have continuous growth of coral reefs without interuption over a mile thick. We have huge limestone deposites thousands of feet thick that cover vaste regions unbroken and these to have been erroded slowly over time. We have thousands of feet of cyclic coal, sandstone and shale in Appalachia that repeated cycles of coal forming swamps with vaste river systems, beaches, deltas, wind blown deposites, and shallow seas and lake deposites. These cycles repeat over and over again without any sign of a world flood. The vaste river systems found in these deposites are found in different layers.

Massive walls of mud caught the dinosaurs as they were trying to outrun the rising waters, instantly killing and burying them for future evolutionists to find and ask: Where is the evidence for a world wide flood?[/quote]

I have travelled around the world and looked at countless rock formations and well logs that agree with the scientific literature of over two hundred years and find no evidence of a world flood.



Since there is no evidence of a previous world flood and the mountains and deep seas remain as described by the Bible, a world flood would still have to be about 5 miles deep.[/QUOTE]


And to top it all off, no one wants to address the simple fact the Mountains of Ararat are an ancient volcanic chain with "air dried" magma on top of the supposed sedimentary layer of the flood. When did that happen?

[ArchaicGuy]

Shunyadragon: No, not very many adventures. My archaeological interest is in the archaeological history in Israel and Egypt. When I met Fasold He stopped by the Kibbutz Almog during the 1992 dig season near Qumran. It was "Hello. Nice to meet you. Goodbye!" Fasold didn't have time to talk. Kibbutz almog is a great place to stay when you are in the Jericho-Dead Sea-Qumran area. The kibbutz below from Qumran is called Qaliya(sp?) On February 11 2004 or 2003 they had a major earthquake.

[Soundsurfr]

I don't know how high the preflood mountains were. They could have easily been put under water even if they were 4,000 feet high. I read somewhere that the earth has enough water that if the earth was completely level or smooth the earth would be covered by several thousand feet of water. In any event, about 75% of the current earth is flooded over with several thousand feet of water. The question of 'where did all the water go?' is not difficult to answer. It's still here.

Secondly, in the biblical account of where the water came from we can read between the lines to see that some really terrible catastrophes other than the flood struck the earth at the time of the flood. I believe that the rain came from a collision between the earth and a comet or a cloud of icy debris of some sort. This bombardment of the earth by rock and ice from space caused untold damage to the earth's crust in addition to flooding the earth with melted comet ice. As the earth's crust shifted and buckled, super volcanoes erupted in many places throwing up trillions of tons of water onto the surface of the earth, water that had been trapped miles under the earth's surface at the time of its formation-the fountains of the great deep. For forty days ice from space fell into the earth's atomosphere melting on the way down.

The shallow ocean basins collapsed into the space left by the magma and water thrown up onto the earth's surface. The water ran off the land filling the newly deepened basins and permanently covering large areas of the earth that had not been under water before the flood. This water was almost hot coming as it did from deep in the earth's crust and from ice from space which had been heated up by the friction between the ice/water and the atmosphere as it fell through the entire depth of the earth's atmosphere. This hot water is the source of the earth's ice age-only one ice age. It took a tremendous amount of heat energy to lift the unimaginable amounts of water, which the ice sheets contained, from the ocean to fall as snow on the land surfaces of the earth. Never again would this energy be available to form mile plus high sheets of ice covering vast areas of the earth. Much of the water in the world's oceans is now very cold. The sun is able to heat only a small portion of the ocean's surface. If more of the colder waters of the deep ocean could be made to well upward to the surface, the earth's atmosphere would cool appreciably, I think, thus reducing overall rainfall for a time. The overall cooling of the oceans is the direct cause of desertification. The heat of the atomosphere is a secondary cause.

There was only one continent before the flood. The energy imparted to the earth's crust by the bombardment from space and the volcanic eruptions broke up the continent causing a vast portion to float westward to become the great islands in the great ocean that we call North and South America. It appeared that these lands were sinking instead of moving westward thus giving rise to the Atlantis myth. If this is the source of the Atlantis myth then it would seem that the rapid continental drift and mountain building did not occur during the flood or immediately after, but possibly centuries after the flood when the earth's crust finally broke under all the the accumulating stress.

Rowland, this is not science. It's somebody with a vivid imagination making up stuff about geology.

The biblical scenario of earth's geological history is definitely out of sync with the modern scientific interpretation of the formation of earth's geological structures. I definitely agree that there is a fairy tale to be found here. Whether the fairy tale is being told by modern science or by the Bible is what we are debating about.

OK. So how should we go about determining which was true and which was a fairy tale?

Either the scientists are wrong or the authors of the Bible are wrong. Both cannot be correct.

Those aren't the only choices. One can be naturalistic, the other allegorical.

We ordinary non-scientist human mortals have a lot more riding on the Bible than we have on modern science.

That is not true for all "non-scientist human mortals". Only those of a certain ilk. And there are plenty of modern scientists who feel that they have more riding on the Bible than on anything else.

If modern science is correct then the textual support of the faith of millions is invalid.

Some would agree with that. Others would not.

If the Bible is correct then the faith of only a few human beings called scientists is destroyed. The scientists would lose only their particular understanding of the physical universe. We believers would lose our hope for the future, would lose our Father God.

None of that has any bearing on what is true and what is not true.

[Rowland]

Rowland, this is not science. It's somebody with a vivid imagination making up stuff about geology.



OK. So how should we go about determining which was true and which was a fairy tale?



Those aren't the only choices. One can be naturalistic, the other allegorical.



That is not true for all "non-scientist human mortals". Only those of a certain ilk. And there are plenty of modern scientists who feel that they have more riding on the Bible than on anything else.



Some would agree with that. Others would not.



None of that has any bearing on what is true and what is not true.

Hi Mr. Sound. I have read hundreds of science books by all sorts of authors as well as books on theology and philosophy. I have been searching for truth for years. There is no way that I can document this journey with citations in this particular format. All I can do is give you my conclusions and briefly at that. My main objective in searching for truth was to find truth that was backed with evidence that was convincing to me. If I had another life I would find the truth that was suported by evidence that would convince you. But I only have this life. Sadly, there is no "we" that can discover which is true, science or the Bible. We are on separate paths so we cannot take this journey together, unfortunately. I am an analytical person and not prone to believe stuff that I haven't investigated personally. I believe that human reason should be applied to all faith systems. I have doubts and problems with my faith, but I refuse to suspend making a commitment to truth until everything about my faith is perfectly explained by the evidence. There comes a time in one's search for truth for making a decision as to what is true and what is false. I have made this decision and I am happy with it, not completely happy, but sufficiently happy. I'm sorry that I am unable to share this satisfaction with my good fortune with you. You must walk your own journey. I can't walk it for you nor convince you of the truth that I have found. I guess there is no shortcut.

I would love to be able to see eye to eye with you on these issues relating to science and faith. Believe me, I'm not trying to be stubborn or disbelieve all that you and the other good people, like Sylas and Roland have said to me. I used to believe in biological evolution and evolutionary geology. I changed my mind. I used to believe that the doctrine of hell was taught by the Bible. I don't now. I used to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was the one true church. I no longer believe this. I have changed my mind about a lot of things over the years. And I am still willing to do so at my age-64. I've been through a lot in my life and have been on both sides of many a controversy. I know that truth cannot be made to fit what I would like the truth to be. On the other hand I have learned to trust my gut instinct about certain things while at the same time searching for evidence for what my instinct is telling me. My instinct told me that something was drastically wrong with the theory of evolution. I followed this up and discovered that my instinct was correct. My instinct told me that the doctrine that teaches that some people will be tortured by God for all eternity could not be correct. I ignored my instinct for many years. I finally researched this doctrine and discovered that it indeed is false and demonic, that the Bible indeed teaches universal salvation through the work of Jesus Christ.

I wish you all the best, Surfer.

Rowland

[Rowland]

Rowland: Are you refering to book by June Dawes Adrift on Dark Waters? The merchant marine you mentioned is David Fasold. I met him in 1992 in Israel before he was profiled on Unsolved Mysteries about Noah's Ark. Sadly, Fasold passed away from cancer in 1998 or maybe 1999?

Hey, Guy, what's happening? No, that title doesn't sound familar, although my memory is pretty bad. I'll go to the library and see if its on the shelf. I would definitely recognize the book. It has a drawing of a giant reed boat and has the author, which I think was the merchant marine himself, standing next to a large stone anchor.

Rowland

[mikeledo]

Interesting article relative to topic.

http://www.creation-science.us/flood_evidence.html

About the "water," some Young-Earth creationists say it was suspended in the atmosphere in a canopy of vapor or ice surrounding the earth, or that vast waters lay beneath the earth, subterranean, since Genesis in the flood story mentions both the waters above and beneath the earth. But soon after the "canopy theory" arose, scientists began pointing out that the air pressure on earth would be much higher if such a canopy existed, or the light that reached the earth's surface would be diminished, but worst of all, according to thermodynamics a great deal of HEAT would have to be released to get that MUCH water down out of the air to "cover the mountains," WAY too much heat. So the young-earther's finally admitted the canopy couldn't have been very thick, i.e., there could not be as much water as they had hoped to store up there and use for their "flood." In fact, according to the major creationist figures and organizations today, they now admit that a canopy holding more than just a few inches of water seems implausible. So the "canopy" of YECs is pretty thin these days and they rely primarily on the hypothesis of vast subterrenean waters beneath the earth, and they imagine that the "pre-Flood" earth didn't have any tall mountains but was much flatter, and with much smaller oceans. So during the Flood, the waters below were released and rose up and covered all the dry land and highest "mountains" (or mole hills, since there were no very high mountains in their pre-Flood scenario), and the continents zipped along instead of drifting over vast eons and colliding with one another. Their hypothesis of "continental zip" means the continents crashed into one another and formed the tall mountains, including the Himalayas in one year. But that hypothesis has problems too, since it also generates too much heat to make the continents move that fast, due to the friction beneath them. And such extreme continental zipping motion and accompanying heat, besides making Noah's ark capsize from unbelievably tall tidal waves, and making the oceans so hot the contents of the ark would boil, would also liquify all the rock beneath the continents instead of leaving the evidence we do see of distinct lines of slow sea-floor spreading that currently exist from the middle of the Atlantic to the shores of North America. So creationists like Baumgartner admit they need a miracle to deal with the heat and to account for the distinctive lines which are evidence of slow sea-floor spreading, not continental zip. Either way, miracles are always needed. God made it "look" like slow-sea floor spreading by mirculously controling the heat released by continental zip.

The "evidence" YECs claim "proves" the whole earth was once Flooded is that so much of the earth's surface is covered with sedimentary rock, rock laid down by water, i.e., rivers, lakes, seas, and the advance and retreats of shorelines. But they neglect to view this as the result of land rising up, mountains rose up, and being worn down slowly over billions of years, and the shorelines advancing inland and then out again over vast periods of time. The Grand Canyon's geology demonstrates three separate movements of the shoreline inland and then out again, since the layers of rock seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon are flat like they would be on a shorline, and consist of sandstone (from ancient sandy beaches), limestone (from calcium-covered microorganisms that lived and thrived a little off shore), shale (from very fine particles of clay that settled out very slowly and further out from the shoreline). And there is even a layer of rock in the Grand Canyon that consists of windblown sand, in other words a former desert. And of course, there are trace fossils of LAND ANIMALS found walking around, making nests, etc., and living in each geological era. Most notable are empty, hatched dinosaur eggs found in nests in the fossil record. That means the dinosaurs had to meet, mate, build a nest, GESTATE their eggs, and the eggs hatch, leaving opened empty egg-shells in the nest which is then buried by sand, or water and dirt, or volcanic ash and dirt and rain, etc. And there are layers of dinosaurs nests lying above and below one another, meaning more time passed. But Genesis says the flood covered the whole earth, and drowned all the land animals.

A RELATIVELY "DRY" FLOOD
The geologic record contains evidence of a wide variety of ancient environments, including ancient oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, soils and deserts, it is not a record of "a year-long Flood." There are desert strata, dried out lake beds, dried up river beds, paleosols (soil horizons), layers of rootlets at different horizons, layers of forests at different horizons, fossilized ant nests, termite nests, fragile wasp cocoons, cells from bees nests, dinosaur nests and eggs, reptile nests and eggs (in the Chinle Formation of the Petrified National Forest), bird nests and eggs (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming), fossilized holes left by worms, fossilized rodent burrows, tracks, trails and markings left by land-dwelling animals, even animal dung in its original position of deposition as it dried, cracked and hardened on solid ground. The geological evidence is clear that DRY land existed at many different periods throughout the past with land animals continuing to walk around, deposit dung, woo mates, build hives, nests or burrows, lay eggs, hatch those eggs ("empty hatched egg" fossils), then raise their young (then repeat the process), such evidence being found at different horizons, or even in horizons right above each other in the geological record. The fact is, deserts formed, lakes formed and dried up, rivers formed and dried up, soils formed, layers of small rootlets had time to grow, then be wiped out and grow again at different horizons, including multiple layers of forests that required time to grow, die and re-grow.

Young-earth creation scientists will no doubt spend from now till doomsday inventing ad hoc hypotheses to try and reconcile all such evidence above with a "Flood" that kept the earth under water for a year, and that would have had to have pulverized the most solid rock into fine sediment (yet plenty of shells and bones survived that miraculous pulverization of countless mountains of rock, to leave behind fossils, including some extraordinarily delicately laid out fossils and all of the trace fossils already mentioned above).

Next, the "Flood" would have had to have piled sediments at an average depth of one mile over all the earth, keeping a multitude of micro-fossils, fossil fragments, trace fossils, and species ALL arranged in extraordinarily good relative order of deposition, and without smudging together the coal seams of Kent with the great white cliff chalk of Dover.

Then those sediments would have to harden into rock overnight. Let me give one example of why that must be so. Sedimentary rock does not harden overnight the silica takes time to bond. Some strata contain boulders that lie on a geological horizon yet do not sink below that horizon, in other words that horizon had to have hardened before the boulder rolled on top of it. This is not a problem for modern geology, because rivers can move boulders, but when "Flood geologists" encounter such a deposit, they have to admit that at least some time passed between the hardening of that strata and the arrival of the boulder to rest on top of it, yet not SINK INTO IT. Moreover, boulders often are conglomerates, rocks that contain rocks inside them, and those rocks that are inside the conglomerate boulder can be cracked open, and you can find, guess what, fossils. I'm not even going to go into the mental gyrations needed to account for all of this as the result merely of a one-year long "Flood."
- E. T. B.

____________________________

"Paleosols" are ancient soils that develop during periods of extensive sub-areal weathering and they are sometimes preserved in the geologic record. Paleosols are found throughout the geologic column and represent periods of Earth history when the region they were found in was not covered by water. Paleosols in the midst of a global flood are not possible.
- Joseph Meert, "Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth Creationism" (Original Verison Fall 1999, Updated July 3, 2002)
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm)

____________________________

CHALK UP ANOTHER VOTE FOR AN OLD EARTH
Anyone who believes the earth is only six thousand years old and Noah's Flood formed the geologic record has to explain why there are layers of limestone and/or chalk many feet thick found in that record. Such layers are composed of countless generations of microscopic shelled organisms that used to live near the surface of the water (as their cousins do today), enjoying the sunlight, multiplying, sucking minerals from the water to form their tiny shells, then dying. Afterwards their remains settled to the bottom (microscopic shells do not settle rapidly). Thick layers of such organisms began appearing for the first time during the Cretaceous era (the whole era was named after "chalk"). Trying to imagine enough microscopic organisms living all at once and then dying suddenly to form such thick densely packed layers (rather than the process taking countless generations) is so improbable as to be impossible. Keep in mind their modern day cousins only live close to the surface of the water, they need sunlight and cannot live in thick layers that block light from each other, and sunlight dims quickly as you proceed deeper into the water. Keep in mind the time it takes to grow and suck the necessary minerals out of the water, and add the time needed to settle to the bottom. Moreover, for the "Flood" hypothesis to be true, these microscopic organisms would have had to have dropped miraculously fast, faster than far denser organisms and coarser heavier sediments lying today in strata above them, not to mention the tracks of reptiles, dinosaurs, and other animals lying above them. If these microorganisms settled so quickly, it's also a miracle that there is no bleeding of chalk into the formations above and below such layers.

Even more difficult to reconcile with a young earth are layers of "pelletized limestone" many feet thick. The "pellets" consist of ancient feces left by fish that ate the microscopic shelled organisms, and then excreted them as pellets. Keep in mind all the time factors I mentioned above but also add the time it would take that many fish to multiply and eat that many microscopic shelled organisms and then defecate them out again in formations of pelletized limestone many feet thick. (Maybe they could have defecated all those pellets at once, many feet thick, if the fish were "frightened to death" by "the Flood?")
- E.T.B.

____________________________

EXPERIMENT FOR NOAH ENTHUSIASTS:
1. Take one of your favorite household potted plants.

2. Water it like hell for 40 days and nights.

3. Observe rotted dead plant.

As a botanist I get extremely disgruntled when reading about Noah. You see, God appears only to be interested in animals. Noah received no instructions to take on board any plants (by plants I mean angiosperms, gymnosperms, pteridiophytes and bryophytes). Talk about shortsightedness. Could this be the root cause for Zoology always being more popular than Botany? Dear Flood supporters, pray tell how did plants survive the Flood? Waiting in anticipation.
- M. (Matto), University of Stellenbosch

____________________________

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SURVIVAL OF PLANT LIFE AFTER THE FLOOD
After a year at sea, what is the likelihood:

1) That more than a handful of seeds miraculously survived the violence of "the Flood of Noah" -- a flood that allegedly reduced rock to fine sediment overnight?

2) That such seeds did not sprout prematurely, which seeds often do in water, doubly so when their seed coasts are abraised which prompts them to begin sprouting.

3) That any surviving plant seeds would be dropped in an area where the temperature, rainfall, soil, and light would be suitable for the growth of that particular species?

4) Even after having reached a spot capable of supporting the growth of that particular species, how long would their flowers have to wait before the birds and insects arrived from Mount Ararat to cross-pollinate them?

Isaac Asimov observes that the ancient Hebrews did not regard plants as alive in the same sense animals are; therefore they had less of a problem than modern botanists do, imagining that an olive tree could endure a year's drowning and sprout immediately afterward. [As in the Biblical tale of the dove that returned to Noah's ark with a live "olive branch" in its mouth. -- E.T.B.] Today's creationists should have learned some botany since then, but they still carry on about the "hardiness" of olives.

Creationists need to soak seeds in muddy salty water for a year [The water should also be "boiling" if "Flood geologists" are correct about the extent of the Flood's rock-pulverizing violence. -- E.T.B.] and then plant them in unconsolidated, briny silt in an unfavorable climate without insect or avian pollinators to see what happens. Have their mathematicians, so skilled at calculating improbabilities for protein formation, ever determined the odds of plant survival?
- Robert A. Moore, "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark," Creation/Evolution, Issue 11, Winter 1983

____________________________

With the land bare of plants what did all the herbivores eat after they disembarked from Noah's ark? Oh wait, I forgot, they did not have time to eat; they were too busy fleeing from the hungry carnivores that disembarked after them.
- E.T.B.

____________________________

[Soundsurfr]

Hi Mr. Sound. I have read hundreds of science books by all sorts of authors as well as books on theology and philosophy. I have been searching for truth for years.

You know, the funny thing about searching for truth is...how do you know when you've found it?

There is no way that I can document this journey with citations in this particular format. All I can do is give you my conclusions and briefly at that.

I'm less interested in having you document your journey and more interested in having you document your conclusions. They sound very suspect to me.

My main objective in searching for truth was to find truth that was backed with evidence that was convincing to me. If I had another life I would find the truth that was suported by evidence that would convince you.

I suspect they would be different truths.

I believe that human reason should be applied to all faith systems.

Did you come to that belief through reason or through faith?

I have doubts and problems with my faith, but I refuse to suspend making a commitment to truth until everything about my faith is perfectly explained by the evidence. There comes a time in one's search for truth for making a decision as to what is true and what is false.

I disagree. We're always learning more about what is true and what is false. Once you make a decision, you close the door to learning.

I would love to be able to see eye to eye with you on these issues relating to science and faith. Believe me, I'm not trying to be stubborn or disbelieve all that you and the other good people, like Sylas and Roland have said to me.

Sounds like you believe what you've chosen to believe and any additional evidence that might be presented to you is immaterial.

I used to believe in biological evolution and evolutionary geology. I changed my mind. I used to believe that the doctrine of hell was taught by the Bible. I don't now. I used to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was the one true church. I no longer believe this. I have changed my mind about a lot of things over the years. And I am still willing to do so at my age-64. I've been through a lot in my life and have been on both sides of many a controversy. I know that truth cannot be made to fit what I would like the truth to be. On the other hand I have learned to trust my gut instinct about certain things while at the same time searching for evidence for what my instinct is telling me. My instinct told me that something was drastically wrong with the theory of evolution. I followed this up and discovered that my instinct was correct.

What is drastically wrong with the theory of evolution?


I wish you all the best, Surfer.

Rowland

I wish you the same, Rowland.

[Rowland]

Interesting article relative to topic.

http://www.creation-science.us/flood_evidence.html

About the "water," some Young-Earth creationists say it was suspended in the atmosphere in a canopy of vapor or ice surrounding the earth, or that vast waters lay beneath the earth, subterranean, since Genesis in the flood story mentions both the waters above and beneath the earth. But soon after the "canopy theory" arose, scientists began pointing out that the air pressure on earth would be much higher if such a canopy existed, or the light that reached the earth's surface would be diminished, but worst of all, according to thermodynamics a great deal of HEAT would have to be released to get that MUCH water down out of the air to "cover the mountains," WAY too much heat. So the young-earther's finally admitted the canopy couldn't have been very thick, i.e., there could not be as much water as they had hoped to store up there and use for their "flood." In fact, according to the major creationist figures and organizations today, they now admit that a canopy holding more than just a few inches of water seems implausible. So the "canopy" of YECs is pretty thin these days and they rely primarily on the hypothesis of vast subterrenean waters beneath the earth, and they imagine that the "pre-Flood" earth didn't have any tall mountains but was much flatter, and with much smaller oceans. So during the Flood, the waters below were released and rose up and covered all the dry land and highest "mountains" (or mole hills, since there were no very high mountains in their pre-Flood scenario), and the continents zipped along instead of drifting over vast eons and colliding with one another. Their hypothesis of "continental zip" means the continents crashed into one another and formed the tall mountains, including the Himalayas in one year. But that hypothesis has problems too, since it also generates too much heat to make the continents move that fast, due to the friction beneath them. And such extreme continental zipping motion and accompanying heat, besides making Noah's ark capsize from unbelievably tall tidal waves, and making the oceans so hot the contents of the ark would boil, would also liquify all the rock beneath the continents instead of leaving the evidence we do see of distinct lines of slow sea-floor spreading that currently exist from the middle of the Atlantic to the shores of North America. So creationists like Baumgartner admit they need a miracle to deal with the heat and to account for the distinctive lines which are evidence of slow sea-floor spreading, not continental zip. Either way, miracles are always needed. God made it "look" like slow-sea floor spreading by mirculously controling the heat released by continental zip.

The "evidence" YECs claim "proves" the whole earth was once Flooded is that so much of the earth's surface is covered with sedimentary rock, rock laid down by water, i.e., rivers, lakes, seas, and the advance and retreats of shorelines. But they neglect to view this as the result of land rising up, mountains rose up, and being worn down slowly over billions of years, and the shorelines advancing inland and then out again over vast periods of time. The Grand Canyon's geology demonstrates three separate movements of the shoreline inland and then out again, since the layers of rock seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon are flat like they would be on a shorline, and consist of sandstone (from ancient sandy beaches), limestone (from calcium-covered microorganisms that lived and thrived a little off shore), shale (from very fine particles of clay that settled out very slowly and further out from the shoreline). And there is even a layer of rock in the Grand Canyon that consists of windblown sand, in other words a former desert. And of course, there are trace fossils of LAND ANIMALS found walking around, making nests, etc., and living in each geological era. Most notable are empty, hatched dinosaur eggs found in nests in the fossil record. That means the dinosaurs had to meet, mate, build a nest, GESTATE their eggs, and the eggs hatch, leaving opened empty egg-shells in the nest which is then buried by sand, or water and dirt, or volcanic ash and dirt and rain, etc. And there are layers of dinosaurs nests lying above and below one another, meaning more time passed. But Genesis says the flood covered the whole earth, and drowned all the land animals.

A RELATIVELY "DRY" FLOOD
The geologic record contains evidence of a wide variety of ancient environments, including ancient oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, soils and deserts, it is not a record of "a year-long Flood." There are desert strata, dried out lake beds, dried up river beds, paleosols (soil horizons), layers of rootlets at different horizons, layers of forests at different horizons, fossilized ant nests, termite nests, fragile wasp cocoons, cells from bees nests, dinosaur nests and eggs, reptile nests and eggs (in the Chinle Formation of the Petrified National Forest), bird nests and eggs (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming), fossilized holes left by worms, fossilized rodent burrows, tracks, trails and markings left by land-dwelling animals, even animal dung in its original position of deposition as it dried, cracked and hardened on solid ground. The geological evidence is clear that DRY land existed at many different periods throughout the past with land animals continuing to walk around, deposit dung, woo mates, build hives, nests or burrows, lay eggs, hatch those eggs ("empty hatched egg" fossils), then raise their young (then repeat the process), such evidence being found at different horizons, or even in horizons right above each other in the geological record. The fact is, deserts formed, lakes formed and dried up, rivers formed and dried up, soils formed, layers of small rootlets had time to grow, then be wiped out and grow again at different horizons, including multiple layers of forests that required time to grow, die and re-grow.

Young-earth creation scientists will no doubt spend from now till doomsday inventing ad hoc hypotheses to try and reconcile all such evidence above with a "Flood" that kept the earth under water for a year, and that would have had to have pulverized the most solid rock into fine sediment (yet plenty of shells and bones survived that miraculous pulverization of countless mountains of rock, to leave behind fossils, including some extraordinarily delicately laid out fossils and all of the trace fossils already mentioned above).

Next, the "Flood" would have had to have piled sediments at an average depth of one mile over all the earth, keeping a multitude of micro-fossils, fossil fragments, trace fossils, and species ALL arranged in extraordinarily good relative order of deposition, and without smudging together the coal seams of Kent with the great white cliff chalk of Dover.

Then those sediments would have to harden into rock overnight. Let me give one example of why that must be so. Sedimentary rock does not harden overnight the silica takes time to bond. Some strata contain boulders that lie on a geological horizon yet do not sink below that horizon, in other words that horizon had to have hardened before the boulder rolled on top of it. This is not a problem for modern geology, because rivers can move boulders, but when "Flood geologists" encounter such a deposit, they have to admit that at least some time passed between the hardening of that strata and the arrival of the boulder to rest on top of it, yet not SINK INTO IT. Moreover, boulders often are conglomerates, rocks that contain rocks inside them, and those rocks that are inside the conglomerate boulder can be cracked open, and you can find, guess what, fossils. I'm not even going to go into the mental gyrations needed to account for all of this as the result merely of a one-year long "Flood."
- E. T. B.

____________________________

"Paleosols" are ancient soils that develop during periods of extensive sub-areal weathering and they are sometimes preserved in the geologic record. Paleosols are found throughout the geologic column and represent periods of Earth history when the region they were found in was not covered by water. Paleosols in the midst of a global flood are not possible.
- Joseph Meert, "Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth Creationism" (Original Verison Fall 1999, Updated July 3, 2002)
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm)

____________________________

CHALK UP ANOTHER VOTE FOR AN OLD EARTH
Anyone who believes the earth is only six thousand years old and Noah's Flood formed the geologic record has to explain why there are layers of limestone and/or chalk many feet thick found in that record. Such layers are composed of countless generations of microscopic shelled organisms that used to live near the surface of the water (as their cousins do today), enjoying the sunlight, multiplying, sucking minerals from the water to form their tiny shells, then dying. Afterwards their remains settled to the bottom (microscopic shells do not settle rapidly). Thick layers of such organisms began appearing for the first time during the Cretaceous era (the whole era was named after "chalk"). Trying to imagine enough microscopic organisms living all at once and then dying suddenly to form such thick densely packed layers (rather than the process taking countless generations) is so improbable as to be impossible. Keep in mind their modern day cousins only live close to the surface of the water, they need sunlight and cannot live in thick layers that block light from each other, and sunlight dims quickly as you proceed deeper into the water. Keep in mind the time it takes to grow and suck the necessary minerals out of the water, and add the time needed to settle to the bottom. Moreover, for the "Flood" hypothesis to be true, these microscopic organisms would have had to have dropped miraculously fast, faster than far denser organisms and coarser heavier sediments lying today in strata above them, not to mention the tracks of reptiles, dinosaurs, and other animals lying above them. If these microorganisms settled so quickly, it's also a miracle that there is no bleeding of chalk into the formations above and below such layers.

Even more difficult to reconcile with a young earth are layers of "pelletized limestone" many feet thick. The "pellets" consist of ancient feces left by fish that ate the microscopic shelled organisms, and then excreted them as pellets. Keep in mind all the time factors I mentioned above but also add the time it would take that many fish to multiply and eat that many microscopic shelled organisms and then defecate them out again in formations of pelletized limestone many feet thick. (Maybe they could have defecated all those pellets at once, many feet thick, if the fish were "frightened to death" by "the Flood?")
- E.T.B.

____________________________

EXPERIMENT FOR NOAH ENTHUSIASTS:
1. Take one of your favorite household potted plants.

2. Water it like hell for 40 days and nights.

3. Observe rotted dead plant.

As a botanist I get extremely disgruntled when reading about Noah. You see, God appears only to be interested in animals. Noah received no instructions to take on board any plants (by plants I mean angiosperms, gymnosperms, pteridiophytes and bryophytes). Talk about shortsightedness. Could this be the root cause for Zoology always being more popular than Botany? Dear Flood supporters, pray tell how did plants survive the Flood? Waiting in anticipation.
- M. (Matto), University of Stellenbosch

____________________________

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SURVIVAL OF PLANT LIFE AFTER THE FLOOD
After a year at sea, what is the likelihood:

1) That more than a handful of seeds miraculously survived the violence of "the Flood of Noah" -- a flood that allegedly reduced rock to fine sediment overnight?

2) That such seeds did not sprout prematurely, which seeds often do in water, doubly so when their seed coasts are abraised which prompts them to begin sprouting.

3) That any surviving plant seeds would be dropped in an area where the temperature, rainfall, soil, and light would be suitable for the growth of that particular species?

4) Even after having reached a spot capable of supporting the growth of that particular species, how long would their flowers have to wait before the birds and insects arrived from Mount Ararat to cross-pollinate them?

Isaac Asimov observes that the ancient Hebrews did not regard plants as alive in the same sense animals are; therefore they had less of a problem than modern botanists do, imagining that an olive tree could endure a year's drowning and sprout immediately afterward. [As in the Biblical tale of the dove that returned to Noah's ark with a live "olive branch" in its mouth. -- E.T.B.] Today's creationists should have learned some botany since then, but they still carry on about the "hardiness" of olives.

Creationists need to soak seeds in muddy salty water for a year [The water should also be "boiling" if "Flood geologists" are correct about the extent of the Flood's rock-pulverizing violence. -- E.T.B.] and then plant them in unconsolidated, briny silt in an unfavorable climate without insect or avian pollinators to see what happens. Have their mathematicians, so skilled at calculating improbabilities for protein formation, ever determined the odds of plant survival?
- Robert A. Moore, "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark," Creation/Evolution, Issue 11, Winter 1983

____________________________

With the land bare of plants what did all the herbivores eat after they disembarked from Noah's ark? Oh wait, I forgot, they did not have time to eat; they were too busy fleeing from the hungry carnivores that disembarked after them.
- E.T.B.

____________________________

You make some good points, Mike. I myself personally cannot answer some of these objections as I am not a scientist. I will say that proving that Christians are wrong does not in itself prove that the evolutionary scenarios are correct any more than if Christians disprove evolution this would prove the Bible to be correct. Furthermore, modern science is only a couple hundred years old, if that. I think that the some of the claims of scientists regarding past geological processes are too grandiose, the scientists are too sure of themselves. A little humility is in order, I think. Let's wait a couple hundred years and see what science tells us then before we start throwing God and the Bible out the window.

Most Christian creation scientists that I know of recognize their debt to their evolutionist and uniformatarian colleagues. Creationists definitely need the observations and scientific work done by their opponents to understand the Flood of Noah's day. It is too bad that we can't work together on these questions that you have brought up.

Another problem, as I have mentioned, is that the creationist's interpretation of the Bible is often incorrect even within the fundamentalist's own Biblical worldview. Obviously, theologically conservative Christians and theologically liberal Christians are not reading the same Bible, but this also applies to some of us conservative Christians. I don't believe in the Orthodox Jewish or the fundamentalist Christian Bible chronology that puts Creation in about the year 4000 BC and the flood in about the year 3000 BC and I am a conservative Christian, or what you would call, a fundamentalist. My interpretation of the Bible gives the year 11,013 BC for the year of creation and 4990 BC for the year of the flood. This could be wrong. But the Bible does teach thousands of years rather than billions of years for the history of life on this planet no matter how a Christian may interpret the Genesis list of begets and begats. Liberal Christian interpretations don't count as being Christian.

The actual flooding of the earth took only 40 days. The flood waters stayed on the earth for another 110 days. From the 150th day to the 370th day when Noah came out of the Ark gives 220 days or a little over 7 months for some parts of the earth to start drying out and for plant life to begin retaking the land. How seeds could soak for some 150-200 days and survive, I don't know. But you will have to agree that life is tenacious.

God did give Noah and the human race permission to start eating meat at this time. Obviously, the pre-flood soil and plant life of the world was far superior to that of the post flood world. It could be that much of the sedimentary rock came from huge pre-flood layers of soil, not from pulverized rock. Siberia is covered over with about 4000 feet of mud that has never turned to sedmentary rock, probably because of the cold temperatures. Even concrete doesn't harden too well in low temperatures. The purity of coal seems to require a quick deposition rather than a slow accumulation of material that would become contaminated over billions of years. And, yes, the canopy idea creates more problems than it solves. I favor the galatic storm idea which would also account for the water on the moon and on Mars. Our solar system ran into a huge cloud of ice, possibly a giant losely formed comet, causing not only the flood but many, not all, of the craters we see on the moon, Mars and even on asteroids and that we see evidence for on this earth.

In any event this information that you have provided may and should cause creationists to rethink their flood scenario. Possilbly, the fossilization occurred after the flood, but before large areas of land had lost its flood waters. Also, creationists theorize that the warm oceans created by the flood caused centuries of hard rain to fall on the earth (snow in the higher latitudes) resulting in giant river systems and local floods that could account for some fossilization and changes from desert, to flooded areas, and back to desert. The creationist scenario could be wrong. But having wrong hypothesis about the flood doesn't make the world wide flood non-existent any more than wrong hypothesis about the moon proves that the moon cannot exist. Based on all science that we know, the earth's moon shouldn't exist. But it does.

Rowland

[mikeledo]

I call BS at your attempt to belittle science, the moon and evolution. This is typical Creationist fare which is far from science itself. I will point out that NOT believeing in the poetic language of the OT myths is not in any way anti-Christian. There are many Christians who are happy enough to accept Jesus and also accept the fact that the Genesis accounts are NOT to be taken literally. The Catholic Church has even opened the door for evolution to co-exist with Biblical narratives.

If you claim the flood occured 4990 BCE and creation was 11,000 BCE than you have already rejected the literal word of the Bible and have placed gaps where no gaps are stated. I would say it is time to take that next intellectual step.

[Cage]

It must be terribly frustrating, but since a Creationist believes in an all-powerful God much of the arguments posited here seem to be moot.

Finding the Ark would be a fascinating piece of evidence, but I suspect it wouldn't change the mind of anyone here.

It seems to be human nature to rationalize a pre-conceived viewpoint no matter what claims someone makes for being objective.

The only thing I've taken away from reading this thread is that pejorative language is the lingua franca of those who run out of truth.

[Soundsurfr]

It must be terribly frustrating, but since a Creationist believes in an all-powerful God much of the arguments posited here seem to be moot.

Finding the Ark would be a fascinating piece of evidence, but I suspect it wouldn't change the mind of anyone here.

It seems to be human nature to rationalize a pre-conceived viewpoint no matter what claims someone makes for being objective.

The only thing I've taken away from reading this thread is that pejorative language is the lingua franca of those who run out of truth.

I can't tell from this which side of the argument you are on.

[Arlan]

It must be terribly frustrating, but since a Creationist believes in an all-powerful God much of the arguments posited here seem to be moot.

Finding the Ark would be a fascinating piece of evidence, but I suspect it wouldn't change the mind of anyone here.

It seems to be human nature to rationalize a pre-conceived viewpoint no matter what claims someone makes for being objective.

The only thing I've taken away from reading this thread is that pejorative language is the lingua franca of those who run out of truth.

Hi Cage ~ I don't know about you but IF, and that is a BIG IF, but IF it was found, that is what you call evidence that that part of the Bible is true. It would change my mind. I go with the evidence, not the legends. Any logical person would have to.
All the evidence that we have today says that the biblical deluge didn't happen on this earth. One such evidence is that the people who lived in the Americas, north and south, have been here for the last 10,000 or more years with out any break for the flood to kill off all the people in this hemisphere. If there had been a year long flood that covered all the mountains about 2450 BC then every glaciers should be no older than about 4450 years old that are on this earth. Many glaciers are over 25,000 to 400,000 years old. That couldn't be if there had been a biblical flood as discribed in the bible. I could go on and on with the evidence that are agains a Genesus flood. Arlan b.

[runtmc2jc]

There is one big problem of the Mt. Ararat as being the Mt. noah had landed on. The Smithsonian Ins. did a study of all the maps that they have copies of and many date back thousands of years but the oldes map with the name of Mt. Ararat on it, only dates back 200 years. We have this legend that is about 5000 years old, but only the last 200 years this mount is named on any map. Someone is pulling our leg when they say they are going to find it on present day Ararat. To speculate of finding it there is a waist of time and money. arlan b

i believe the scriptures say the ark landed on the 'mountains of ararat' not on 'mount ararat'.

[runtmc2jc]

Ron Wyatt never was believeable. His claims were outragous, with no good evidence or logic behind it.

your statement is not based in logic, but rather strictly an opinion. i've studied wyatt's claims extensively and have found much logic based on a literal reading of the scriptures. this of course does not mean his claims are genuine or authentic, only time will tell. it would be logical for instance to look for noah's ark in the region of the 'mountains of ararat', for the ark of the covenant beneath the streets of jerusalem, for the site of the crossing of the red sea on the east coast of the sinai peninsula and therefore for 'mt. sinai' on the arabian peninsula, for sodom and gomorrah in the dead sea area, etc. if one interprets the biblical narrativel literally, then such assumptions make perfect sense.

[Jbuza]

Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know.

-Neil

I stopped reading after this statement. Just 'cause you said it don't make it so. Would you car to share how science has falsified a recent global flood?

[bandecoot]

I stopped reading after this statement. Just 'cause you said it don't make it so. Would you car to share how science has falsified a recent global flood?


Lets see, is there a layer of sedimentary rock evenly distributed across the whole planet at the same level in the Geological Column? No? Well where did the sediment from a global flood go? You see, in the 1800's a few Christian Geologists went looking for evidence of the Flood firmy convinced that they would find it. They did not, in fact, find any such thing.

Reverend William Buckland (a Christian obviously)wrote in 1837:
Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcileable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.
(Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology, 1837)

Now this has yet to be contested by anyone. Of course you can check what I have posted by simply doing a search on his name and you will find plenty of links to his work. There are more modern examples such as the Varves at lake Baikal the ice cores from antarctica. There is simply no evidence that such an event ever occoured let alone 4000 years ago.

[Zeluvia]

This thread was started in April of 2004

The expedition was supposed to go in August of 2004

This is August of 2005

Do we have any new information?

[bandecoot]

This thread was started in April of 2004

The expedition was supposed to go in August of 2004

This is August of 2005

Do we have any new information?


Of course not zeluvia, if anything was found it would have been all over the front page of the newspapers. There is simply nothing to find. This is one of the zombie threads I ranted about in the lockerroom. :teeth:

[Zeluvia]

Of course not zeluvia, if anything was found it would have been all over the front page of the newspapers. There is simply nothing to find. This is one of the zombie threads I ranted about in the lockerroom. :teeth:
Ah I have never been in the lockerroom, I feared the smell !

I just wondered why a year old thread got bumped out of nowhere = )

[bandecoot]

Ah I have never been in the lockerroom, I feared the smell !

I just wondered why a year old thread got bumped out of nowhere = )


The lockerroom is lightly moderated, a good place to rant. Some newbie is running around digging up old threads and sending them shambling about Tweb.

No names obviously.

I normally avoid this section because of all the fringe stuff that people post here. How does one answer " the Giants Built the Pyramids" ? It is sort of obvious that facts are not going to dissuade them so I dont bother all that often.

[mikeledo]

Lets see, is there a layer of sedimentary rock evenly distributed across the whole planet at the same level in the Geological Column? No? Well where did the sediment from a global flood go? You see, in the 1800's a few Christian Geologists went looking for evidence of the Flood firmy convinced that they would find it. They did not, in fact, find any such thing.

Reverend William Buckland (a Christian obviously)wrote in 1837:
Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcileable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.
(Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology, 1837)

Now this has yet to be contested by anyone. Of course you can check what I have posted by simply doing a search on his name and you will find plenty of links to his work. There are more modern examples such as the Varves at lake Baikal the ice cores from antarctica. There is simply no evidence that such an event ever occoured let alone 4000 years ago.


The sedimentary rock on top of the mountains of Ararat are covered with igneous rock from when Ararat was an ancient volcanic chain. The type of volcanic material located on Ararat is such that it was deposited in air and not underwater. This means there can be no ark on Ararat unless one claims no sedimentary layer was desposited from the flood and the earth is millions of years old.

The ark has indeed been found and we have been looking at it for centuries. It is the constellation Argo.

[runtmc2jc]

Shunyadragon: No, not very many adventures. My archaeological interest is in the archaeological history in Israel and Egypt. When I met Fasold He stopped by the Kibbutz Almog during the 1992 dig season near Qumran. It was "Hello. Nice to meet you. Goodbye!" Fasold didn't have time to talk. Kibbutz almog is a great place to stay when you are in the Jericho-Dead Sea-Qumran area. The kibbutz below from Qumran is called Qaliya(sp?) On February 11 2004 or 2003 they had a major earthquake.

i was wondering if in your experience there, did you see the evidences for sodom/gomorrah as related by wyatt at www.anchorstone.com. can you confirm or refute some of these claims?

[shunyadragon]

i was wondering if in your experience there, did you see the evidences for sodom/gomorrah as related by wyatt at www.anchorstone.com (http://www.anchorstone.com/). can you confirm or refute some of these claims?

I visited Isreal in 1999 and toured the region of the Dead Sea. I also follow the archeological digs and research concerning the region. There was a good BBC documentry on the possible fate of Sodom and Gomorrah related to evidence of a major earthquake in the region.

I reviewed the cite referenced and some of the connected links and found nothing credible in the claims that archeological evidence for the cities had been found.

Actually Sodom and Gomorrah were probably major trade cities involved in the tar trade with Egypt that they acquired from the Dead Sea. They were likely quite wealthy cities and wild places. A major drought event in the region and worldwide followed some years after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that catastrophically and suddenly ended the Old Kingdom of Egypt and depopulated the area around the Dead Sea, which became arid and rather desolate.

[ArchaicGuy]

runtmc2jc: No. I didn't get to see Ron Wyatt's locations for Sodom and Gomorrah. I think they are on the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea? I know someone that helped Ron Wyatt search for the Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem but he didn't see the Ark inside the cave that Ron Wyatt supposedly seen. I believe the Ark of the Covenant is in a sealed chamber near thr ruins of Qumran along with the Holy Tabernacle and the Altar of Incense hidden by the prophet Jeremiah seven years prior to the destruction of the first Temple. The locations of Sodom and Gomorrah were in the northern part of the Dead Sea. Abram and Lot were standing at a point between Bethel and Ai, locations north of Jerusalem when they were looking toward Zoar and Sodom and Gomorrah. The Christian traditional location of Gilgal, north or east of Jericho, is the true location of Zoar. Zoar is mentioned being close to the city of Palms which is called Jericho. The true site of Gilgal was discovered in 1994 by Vendyl Jones.

[mikeledo]

The Numeria site is linked to Gomorrah. It was destroyed circa 2500 BCE. If Abraham lived at that time as was supposed by the Bible, then the time line becomes a little warped and Hittites who were supposed to have lived at the time of Abraham won't be around for about 700 years.



I believe these sites are the destroyed cities referred to in the Bible, however, I discount many passages which follow as original text as they are out of place historically. The Hitties could have only been added at a later date.

[ArchaicGuy]

Mikeledo: I heard the Numeria site maybe linked to Gomorrah. I don't agree that it is. Abram and Lot were standing on Ba'al Hazor(Sp?) between Bethel and Ai. Ba'al Hazor can be seen from the Northern part of the Dead Sea region. Ba'al Hazor cannot be seen from the southern Dead Sea region nor can the southern part of the Dead Sea be seen from Ba'al Hazor. Sodom and Gomorrah have to be in the Northern area of the Dead Sea region. Correction: What is mentioned on maps as the Christian traditional site for Gilgal is northeast of Jericho.

[shunyadragon]

The Numeria site is linked to Gomorrah. It was destroyed circa 2500 BCE. If Abraham lived at that time as was supposed by the Bible, then the time line becomes a little warped and Hittites who were supposed to have lived at the time of Abraham won't be around for about 700 years.

I believe these sites are the destroyed cities referred to in the Bible, however, I discount many passages which follow as original text as they are out of place historically. The Hitties could have only been added at a later date.

Numeria is linked to Gomorrah in time and culture, and the severe earthquake that destroyed Gomorrah also likely did in Numeria.

The Hitite problem demonstrates the non-literal nature of Biblical genre.

[Maimonides]

This was over the news yesterday on several outlets. Here's the only story online I could find with the referenced satellite images:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38220

Also, here's a link to the 1949 photos that remained classified for years. This article was written before the recent photos were taken, but if I'm reading it right, it's of the same anomaly:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-1.html

Ok, here's my question. I know it's HIGHLY speculative, but what if this turns out to be a huge boat 16,000 feet up on a mountain? I know. . . let's wait and see, but what fun is that?

What kind of reaction from society would it garner? From different quarters?

Just speculating.

tizzi

I'm sure that enterprising locals have manufactured enough wood from "Noah's Ark" for purchase by gullible creationists to build a fleet of clipper ships...

On a more serious note, I wouldn't want to leap to concusions. Maybe it's some sort of monk's habitation from the Middle Ages (Armenian, maybe, or Byzantine). Or a downed aircraft. Or... who knows? It will be interesting to see.

[Maimonides]

The Yetis keep throwing rocks at us?

Ah, that would be the Himalayas, quite a ways to the east. :wink:

[Maimonides]

I wish you had not posted what I later edited ( I do take the blame, however, because I did in fact post it for all to see). I later edited out the commentary re: NeilUnreal's post.

I chose to delete the NeilUnreal portion of my post because I simply cannot determine how NeilUnreal came up with his statement that "Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know" because he never supported it with any information.

So how did NeilUnreal arrive at the opinion of "Scientifically, a recent global flood is as thoroughly falsified as anything we know."? Via a thorough a careful examination and analysis of all the data and all the assumptions that many scientists used to form the opinion that there never was a global flood? Via examining the current consensus of the scientific community (logicians would call this ad populum fallacy)? I simply do not know how NeilUnreal came up with his conclusion that I cited above because he never offered any real evidence. So I just deleted that portion of my post rather than speculate on how NeilUnreal came up with his conclusion.

I also do not think a tremendous amount of research dollars have been poured into what specific and clear evidence a global flood would leave or not leave in order to make dogmatic assertions from an empirical standpoint that there was no global flood. I also think that time would erase a lot of evidence although I recognize the fact that creationist and evolutionist debate the issue of global flood evidence heatedly. After looking at the issue from strictly a science view, I have come to the conclusion that young earth creationism is the best inference given the data. If anyone wishes to examine why I have come to this conclusion I offer the following information: http://www.apologetics.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=937&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I also do not want to see this thread turned into a old earth/young earth or creation/evolution debate because I feel that would be taking the string into area that the string author may or probably does not want it to go. In short, I think that NeilUnreal and I should just agree to disagree in relation to the evidence for a global flood.

Sincerely,

Ken

How do you account for the seriation of the fossil record? Varves? Animal burrows? Algal growth? Differential deposition (some layers spike in iridium, usually seems to mean meteor impact)? Etc. etc. Radiometric dating is just the icing on the cake.

[runtmc2jc]

runtmc2jc: No. I didn't get to see Ron Wyatt's locations for Sodom and Gomorrah. I think they are on the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea? I know someone that helped Ron Wyatt search for the Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem but he didn't see the Ark inside the cave that Ron Wyatt supposedly seen. I believe the Ark of the Covenant is in a sealed chamber near thr ruins of Qumran along with the Holy Tabernacle and the Altar of Incense hidden by the prophet Jeremiah seven years prior to the destruction of the first Temple. The locations of Sodom and Gomorrah were in the northern part of the Dead Sea. Abram and Lot were standing at a point between Bethel and Ai, locations north of Jerusalem when they were looking toward Zoar and Sodom and Gomorrah. The Christian traditional location of Gilgal, north or east of Jericho, is the true location of Zoar. Zoar is mentioned being close to the city of Palms which is called Jericho. The true site of Gilgal was discovered in 1994 by Vendyl Jones.

thank you for your reply. i was interested in the sulphur balls embedded in the alleged formations (man-made as claimed by Wyatt). have you any experience with these anomalies in the areas you visited, and could these be the source or result of the biblical "fire and brimstone" as claimed in the following link? http://www.anchorstone.com/index.php?set_albumName=sodom&option=com_gallery&Itemid=69&include=view_album.php

[shunyadragon]

thank you for your reply. i was interested in the sulphur balls embedded in the alleged formations (man-made as claimed by Wyatt). have you any experience with these anomalies in the areas you visited, and could these be the source or result of the biblical "fire and brimstone" as claimed in the following link? http://www.anchorstone.com/index.php?set_albumName=sodom&option=com_gallery&Itemid=69&include=view_album.php

The sulfur balls are a natural phenomenon in many formations like these around the world and not at all related to the Catastrophic event that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

[runtmc2jc]

The sulfur balls are a natural phenomenon in many formations like these around the world and not at all related to the Catastrophic event that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

thanks for your opinion shuny...but i wanted to know if archaicguy had any first hand experience with this phenomena in the Dead Sea Area.

[ArchaicGuy]

Runtmc2jc: No, I haven't seen any of the sulfur balls in the archaeological site near Qumran. I wish I had a couple of the sulfur balls to add to my rock collection from the Dead Sea area. As to speculation of what destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to account for the sulfur balls in the Dead sea area. I would theorise it was the result of a meteorite of comet impact nuking S&G from existence?

[mikeledo]

Mikeledo: I heard the Numeria site maybe linked to Gomorrah. I don't agree that it is. Abram and Lot were standing on Ba'al Hazor(Sp?) between Bethel and Ai. Ba'al Hazor can be seen from the Northern part of the Dead Sea region. Ba'al Hazor cannot be seen from the southern Dead Sea region nor can the southern part of the Dead Sea be seen from Ba'al Hazor. Sodom and Gomorrah have to be in the Northern area of the Dead Sea region. Correction: What is mentioned on maps as the Christian traditional site for Gilgal is northeast of Jericho.


I discount that story of Abram and Lot.

[shunyadragon]

thanks for your opinion shuny...but i wanted to know if archaicguy had any first hand experience with this phenomena in the Dead Sea Area.

Suflur balls are sulfur balls, they are very normal secondary deposits of elemental sulfur, which I will provide more detail shortly.

[ArchaicGuy]

Mikeledo: Why do you discount Genesis ch:13?

[mikeledo]

Mikeledo: Why do you discount Genesis ch:13?

My research into the OT is unlike any you have seen or read. I have isolated what I believe to be the "original" text. I suggest the OT was built in stages as a living document similar if not identical to the style in which the Epic of Gilgamesh. I don't discount the whole chapter, just most of it. This is what I believe the original text would have looked like:

12:1 Now YHWH said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee: 3a and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse.12:4a So Abram went, as YHWH had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him.6aAnd Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the oak of Moreh. 9a And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the South.

13:5 And Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. 7a And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle. 8a And Abram said unto Lot 9b separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. If [thou wilt take] the left hand, then I will go to the right. 10a And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the Plain of the Jordan 2b and moved his tent as far as Sodom.

[ArchaicGuy]

Mikeledo: You can't leave out Abram and Lot in Egypt. Chapter 13 starts with them leaving Egypt going NORTH into southern Canaan. They continued going North until they reached Bethel. Bethel is North of Jerusalem not south. Are you sure you can read a map? Standing on Mount Ba'al Hatzor which is between Bethel and Ai both being north of Jerusalem when you face toward the east you would see the plain of the Jordan river.

[Maimonides]

My research into the OT is unlike any you have seen or read. I have isolated what I believe to be the "original" text. I suggest the OT was built in stages as a living document similar if not identical to the style in which the Epic of Gilgamesh. I don't discount the whole chapter, just most of it. This is what I believe the original text would have looked like:

12:1 Now YHWH said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee: 3a and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse.12:4a So Abram went, as YHWH had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him.6aAnd Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the oak of Moreh. 9a And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the South.

13:5 And Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. 7a And there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle. 8a And Abram said unto Lot 9b separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. If [thou wilt take] the left hand, then I will go to the right. 10a And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the Plain of the Jordan 2b and moved his tent as far as Sodom.





You have piqued my interest. More info on this would be greatly appreciated.

[mikeledo]

Mikeledo: You can't leave out Abram and Lot in Egypt. Chapter 13 starts with them leaving Egypt going NORTH into southern Canaan. They continued going North until they reached Bethel. Bethel is North of Jerusalem not south. Are you sure you can read a map? Standing on Mount Ba'al Hatzor which is between Bethel and Ai both being north of Jerusalem when you face toward the east you would see the plain of the Jordan river.

I do leave out Lot and Abram in Egypt. The verses at the beginning of chapter 12 and that of 13 are nearly identical. Abram and Lot travel to the land which God had promised them. This is what is known as "resumptive repetition." Scholars claim it is simply a literally device in the Bible. However, in Gilgamesh, resumptive repetition is used exclusively to insert new material, ie. material that was not in the original text. We know this for a fact because we have the older texts. We don't have any older texts of the Bible than the DSS, which has evidence additions to the Bible were still being made at that late date.

When we eliminate Abram in Egypt, we therefore must eliminate Hagar, Ismael, and the Ishmaelites. The story that is left is a bare bone story which corresponds to the ancient meaning of the stars and constellations and becomes a story similar to other religions and myths. Sarah now becomes a younger woman and does not have a barren birth. Only Rebecca has a barren birth. Barren births were associated with the sign of Cancer and no other. Abram was assosiated with the ancient constellation of Asad, which associated him with the summer solstice. When the summer solstice moved from Leo into Cancer, the priests or scribes deemed Abram should still have some kind of connection to the solstice so they added the additional barren birth story as well as other stories.

We now have a wonderful story which fits hand and glove with the ancient view of the constellations. The battle between Lot and Abram's farm hands now become a pivotal part of the story. This is the division of farm land between Hercules and Orphiuchus. Here the ancient stars signified a division of pasture lands. Lot travels south to Libra, or Sodom where there is a judgement. In Egypt the story is reversed. There is first a judgement followed my a divison of lands between Horus and Set. One wears the red crown (Northern Crown) and the other the white (Southern Crown.) The meaning of the stars and constellations are basically the same between the two cultures, however the story used to explain them appear alien to each other.

The story moves to Cancer and Isaac. The two main features of Cancer represent an Oasis -this would sometimes be a cave and later would be a manger (Greek) or an inn (Roman). The other feature is the barren birth. This was due to Cancer's original association with the scarb or dung beetle which appeared to have barren births. This would evolve to virgin births and would be associated with Virgo. Hence you get a solar god born to a virgin as the popular savior god of later myths. The two main features of the story of Issac would be the meeting of the servent and Rebecca at the oasis or watering hole and the barren birth of the twins, which moves nicely into Gemini.

There are two stars in Cancer associated with the ass. However this association came later. This is when Ishmael who was associated with the ass would have been added to the story.

Now a lot of you would say that some of these associations might be a stretch or coincedental. However, I have been able to do this for the entire story of second creation through the crowning of Solomon (which Freidman claims was the length of the original text). This includes 48 constelltions, hundreds of stars and is done in a basic contiguous fashion.

At the winter solstice, we just happen to have the story of the solar Samson whose eyes are put out and hair (rays of sun) is cut. This star also represents the temple of Dagon in ancient times as well as the solstice.

Joshua and the incident where the sun stood still, happens to fall at the foot of Pegasus where there was a super nova. In ancient times this part of the sky would shine bright and was considered a night time sun. This is also the spot in the constellations where the Apollo had his chariot stolen (the one which pulls the sun) and driven out of control.

[ArchaicGuy]

Mikeledo: Your answer is the same Documentary Hypothesis antisemetic garbage I have seen before.

[mikeledo]

Mikeledo: Your answer is the same Documentary Hypothesis antisemetic garbage I have seen before.

There is nothing antisemetic about my hypothesis. Nor is it one you have seen before, unless it was from me.

[Maimonides]

Mikeledo: Your answer is the same Documentary Hypothesis antisemetic garbage I have seen before.

Personally I find it appalling that you would respond to Mikeledo's well-thought out, cogent, articulate presentation with this vitriolic and rather puerile insult.

[runtmc2jc]

The sulfur balls are a natural phenomenon in many formations like these around the world and not at all related to the Catastrophic event that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

perhaps 'fire and brimstone' rained down in multiple locations, the Dead Sea area being just one of them.

[shunyadragon]

perhaps 'fire and brimstone' rained down in multiple locations, the Dead Sea area being just one of them.

Fire and brimstone better fits volcanic events, which can be quite sulfurous, and the source of a great deal of the sulfur that forms sulfur balls, and other secondary elemental sulfur deposits, not falling sulfur balls. The mechanisms for elemental sulfur deposites are well known and can be easliy reproduced experimentally.

[ArchaicGuy]

Maimonides: As I said to Mikeledo "you can't leave out Abram and Lot in Egypt." Mikeledo's contellations have nothing to do with the account of Abram and Lot in Genesis chapters 12-13. It is the same mixing pagan ideas into the Jewish scriptures in an attempt to invalidate the Jewish scriptures. It is the same 'Documentary Hypothesis anti-semetic garbage' I have seen before. Higher Criticism is Higher Anti-semetism.

[mikeledo]

Maimonides: As I said to Mikeledo "you can't leave out Abram and Lot in Egypt." Mikeledo's contellations have nothing to do with the account of Abram and Lot in Genesis chapters 12-13. It is the same mixing pagan ideas into the Jewish scriptures in an attempt to invalidate the Jewish scriptures. It is the same 'Documentary Hypothesis anti-semetic garbage' I have seen before. Higher Criticism is Higher Anti-semetism.

The document hypothesis has been written about by Richard Elliot Freidman, a Jew. I suppose he is anti-Semetic too. I look for facts, not fairy tales. I don't believe William Tell existed, but I don't hate my Swiss ancestors. The existance or non-existance of Biblical characters and the truth of the Bible does not make me anti-Semetic. In fact I believe the Jews to have been wonderful astrologers and story-tellers. They blended fact and fiction in such a way as to create a history of the heavens and earth (Gen. 2:4a).

[runtmc2jc]

Fire and brimstone better fits volcanic events, which can be quite sulfurous, and the source of a great deal of the sulfur that forms sulfur balls, and other secondary elemental sulfur deposits, not falling sulfur balls. The mechanisms for elemental sulfur deposites are well known and can be easliy reproduced experimentally.

quite possibly........but are there local volcanoes to account for the plethora of sulphur balls found in the Dead Sea area, some on the ground, others stuck in the surface of formations that could pass for something man-made in antiquity - (since destroyed in some conflagration, ash and these enigmatic sulphur balls being left behind.)? (I cite the evidence as presented @ www.anchorstone.com - Sodom and Gomorrah.)

[geochron]

Maimonides: As I said to Mikeledo "you can't leave out Abram and Lot in Egypt." Mikeledo's contellations have nothing to do with the account of Abram and Lot in Genesis chapters 12-13. It is the same mixing pagan ideas into the Jewish scriptures in an attempt to invalidate the Jewish scriptures. It is the same 'Documentary Hypothesis anti-semetic garbage' I have seen before. Higher Criticism is Higher Anti-semetism.

It isn't anti-semitic in the normal usage of the word to think Jewish scriptures are mythological.

[ArchaicGuy]

Mikeledo: According to Documentary Hypothesis the Torah wasn't written until the time of King Josiah. They use the discovery of the Book of Moses during the renovation of the first Temple to prove the Torah was written at that time. They ignore the fact that an ancestor of King Josiah's quotes from the book of Deuteronomy two hundred years before it was 'supposedly written' according to the Documentary Hypothesis. Archaeologists in Jerusalem made the discovery of a silver scroll inscribed with the priestly blessing dating to 9th-8th century bce. Archaeologist Eilat Mazar's excavations of what is most likely King David's Palace in the City of David has been confirmed to have been constructed to the 11th-10th century bce. As described in the Book of Samuel. Documentary Hypothesis like the regimes of Assad and Abbas is crumbling like walls of Jericho did when the Israelites took the city!

[ArchaicGuy]

geochron: It is considered to be anti-semetic if you try to mix pagan ideas into the Jewish scriptures.

[mikeledo]

Mikeledo: According to Documentary Hypothesis the Torah wasn't written until the time of King Josiah. They use the discovery of the Book of Moses during the renovation of the first Temple to prove the Torah was written at that time. They ignore the fact that an ancestor of King Josiah's quotes from the book of Deuteronomy two hundred years before it was 'supposedly written' according to the Documentary Hypothesis. Archaeologists in Jerusalem made the discovery of a silver scroll inscribed with the priestly blessing dating to 9th-8th century bce. Archaeologist Eilat Mazar's excavations of what is most likely King David's Palace in the City of David has been confirmed to have been constructed to the 11th-10th century bce. As described in the Book of Samuel. Documentary Hypothesis like the regimes of Assad and Abbas is crumbling like walls of Jericho did when the Israelites took the city!

You are correct. However I don't believe in the document hypothesis which you state. I contend the Bible was a living document and was added to by scribes over the ages. This accounts for differences in style (which supports the document hypothesis) and the continuity of the text (which supports unified text theory). This would also account for the gross chronoligical errors.

The first text was written circa 2200-2100 BCE.

[ArchaicGuy]

Mikeledo: Your 'resumptive repetition argument' does not work for Genesis Ch:12-13. The beginning of Genesis ch:12 begins with G-D telling Abram to go to a land I will show thee while Abram was still in Haran. Abram arriving in the vincinity of Bethel and Ai later in the account. Abram and Lot didn't stay in Canaan because of a severe famine so they moved into Egypt where there was no famine. Genesis ch:13 begins with Abram and Lot leaving Egypt going into southern Canaan. They kept going until they reached the vicinity of Bethel and Ai. Bethel's ruins are north of Ramallah, northeast of Ramallah near Ofra is Mt. Ba'al Hatzor (1016 meters above sea level) where Abram and Lot stood in Genesis ch:12 verse 8 and ch:13 verses 3-11, east or southeast of Bethel would be the ruins of Ai? Ai's location no one is certain. It is plain by the text the beginnings of Genesis ch:12 and Ch:13 are not the same. Do you believe Abram and Lot existed? Do you believe Moses existed and that he wrote the written Torah account?

[mikeledo]

Mikeledo: Your 'resumptive repetition argument' does not work for Genesis Ch:12-13. The beginning of Genesis ch:12 begins with G-D telling Abram to go to a land I will show thee while Abram was still in Haran. Abram arriving in the vincinity of Bethel and Ai later in the account. Abram and Lot didn't stay in Canaan because of a severe famine so they moved into Egypt where there was no famine. Genesis ch:13 begins with Abram and Lot leaving Egypt going into southern Canaan. They kept going until they reached the vicinity of Bethel and Ai. Bethel's ruins are north of Ramallah, northeast of Ramallah near Ofra is Mt. Ba'al Hatzor (1016 meters above sea level) where Abram and Lot stood in Genesis ch:12 verse 8 and ch:13 verses 3-11, east or southeast of Bethel would be the ruins of Ai? Ai's location no one is certain. It is plain by the text the beginnings of Genesis ch:12 and Ch:13 are not the same. Do you believe Abram and Lot existed? Do you believe Moses existed and that he wrote the written Torah account?

The resumptive repetition works very well as it doesn't matter where they were at, but where they were going. The Famine would not have been in the text, hence they had no reason to go to Egypt.

Ai's location is well established by the mountain of rocks as described in the Bible. The problem with this site is that it was destroyed in the Early Bronze Age, about the same time the stone walls of Jericho fell-imagine that.

Moses is a cosmic Canaanite version of the King Sargon I. Moses could not have written the Torah account for the simple fact it mentions his death. History does not record anything about Abraham and Lot.

[ArchaicGuy]

Mikeledo: Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed an alternate site for the city of Ai at Khirbet el-Maqatir. The location of Ai you mentioned was destroyed in the Early Bronze Age at Et Tell, which I agree is the Ai destroyed by the Israelites. Some scholars place the destuction of Ai during Bronze Age 2. In 1994, Vendyl Jones discovered at his Gilgal site Geder boundary walls dated to Early Bronze Age up to the Middle Bronze Age. This indicates the Israelites arrived into the area prior to the time when Jericho and Ai were destroyed as recorded accurately in the Book of Joshua. A little known fact: Morgan Robertson wrote the book 'The Wreck of the Titan' which is an accurate prediction of the sinking of the RMS Titanic 14 years before the event happened. Moses learned about his death from G-D at Mt. Sinai forty years before he died at Mt. Nebo. So, It's not impossible for someone to know or write about their death before it happens. People have been know to have premonitions of their deaths. My Mother had a premonition of her death before she died in 1991. So much for your multiple authors of the Torah Documentary Hypothesis anti-semetic gerbage!

[ArchaicGuy]

Mikeledo: According to a copy of the Genesis Apocryphon found in Cave 4 at Qumran the account of Abram and Lot in Egypt is recorded. So you're making a mistake by removing that section to try to prove that Sodom and Gomorrah were in the southern part of the Dead Sea region.

[bandecoot]

I love watching you armchair types fight. Have any of you considered actually spending some money and grabbing a magnetomter and actually looking for Sodom and Gomorrah? Israel is not that big you know. The dead sea has limits and a bit of research could help you find the twin cities. Schliemann did it with Troy. In fact I believe some one has already found a putative site back in the late seventies. You could go have a dig there and if thats a non starter move on.

If you are not Archaeologists I can recommend some good books on the subject. But as those books say " You learn Archaeology by doing it, not by reading books".


But posting to a message board about things that cannot be resolved with out a bit of good old fashioned digging in some dirt is not productive. As much as it amuses me.

[Dave G]

Who was the guy who did diving in the Red Sea and took video of what looked like a chariot wheel with a protruding rim? The story was they took the video (a few minutes long) and later dives were obscured by silt. I remember seeing the video and wanting to be sceptical, but I couldn't think of anything that size and shape that could have been dumped there. :nsm:

[runtmc2jc]

Who was the guy who did diving in the Red Sea and took video of what looked like a chariot wheel with a protruding rim? The story was they took the video (a few minutes long) and later dives were obscured by silt. I remember seeing the video and wanting to be sceptical, but I couldn't think of anything that size and shape that could have been dumped there. :nsm:


KALHOUN is the bomb!

[Dave G]

KALHOUN is the bomb!

:lol:
You know it!

(For anyone who's lurking, it's the title song and album title of the Daniel Amos cd that's my avatar at the moment.)

[runtmc2jc]

here is some info from the anchorstone.com site concerning gomorrah.

Since combustion is a chemical process, we read up on and discovered that the study by the Frenchman, Lavoissier, on
the nature of oxygen and combustion came about when he discovered that substances burned with sulfur had a
HEAVIER remaining ash than the original unburned substance. Further study into combustion got extremely complicated
-- much too much to get into here -- but indicated that the event of the destruction of these cities was the result of a
carefully controlled chemical reaction that took place VERY rapidly, yet maintained an equilibrium that didn't result in an
explosion.

The next thing we did was ride the cable-car to the top of Masada in order to view the remains of the best preserved site
from an aerial point of view. The road turning off of the main road along the shore of the Dead Sea which leads to
Masada cuts through the remains of the site of Gomorrah. From atop the mountain, the remains revealed features that
we couldn't distinguish from ground level.
From here, we could see sections which looked exactly like artificially-raised platform areas of other ancient cities which
were temple areas. These "platform areas" showed vast flat areas with ziggurat-shaped masses on them, as well as
large ashen "chunks" which bore the overall resemblance of the sphinx we had first seen, only these were much larger.
On areas where the ground level would rise, the ashen structures seemed to be terraced, following the lay of the land.
The walls extending around this site displayed one feature that was very exciting -- it was "double-walled", exactly like
the Canaanite city walls of other excavated sites. Where the wall had an opening in it on the northern side (which we
believe was where the gate was, and therefore an entrance into the city) there was a tall structure on the western edge of
this opening, exactly like a gate "tower". There was no doubt that all of these features were simply beyond the realm of
simple coincidence. But at this point, Ron still felt that there had to be SOMETHING which would prove these sites to be
the cities, and which would prove it beyond a doubt. But what this might be, we simply didn't have a clue. Well, actually
we did, but we didn't understand it.A VERY Strange Evidence?
In August of 1990, I had taken a small sample of ash, about four inches long, and was about to wrap it in tissue paper
and place it in a plastic soap-carrying container. As I handled it, the layers loosened and separated, revealing a very,
VERY strange site within the white material. I took it to Ron because it looked to me like an eyeball. I knew it wasn't --
actually, it was a perfectly round hole within the ash surrounded by a reddish ring of hard, crusty material.

all
through the ashen remains were round balls of sulfur (brimstone) encapsulated in burnt crystalline. Now we knew what
my "eyeball" was! In my specimen, however, the sulfur had apparently fallen out as it separated while I was carrying it for
several hours.
As they looked around, now knowing what to look for, they saw these sulfur balls literally everywhere they looked.
Before, we hadn't been able to see them because the loose ash had covered everything. But now the rain washed away
the loose ash and caused this section to fall way, revealing these sulfur balls embedded through the ashen material. The
reddish-black crystalline material surrounding the sulfur balls showed that they had once been on fire. It seems that as
these burning balls of brimstone fell from the sky, they burned right through everything. And as they burned, after a while,
molten material surrounding the sulfur cut if off from the flame, preserving it in the interior of the ashes.
What was discovered was that as the ashen material erodes and these sulfur balls become exposed to the surface, they
fall out of their capsule and can be found lying all over the ground. But we hadn't been able to see them before because
they had been covered with the loose layer of ash. We began to research sulfur to see if sulfur in this form had been
found anywhere else.

We have talked with numerous geologists and chemists without telling them why we were
asking. However, we weren't the first ones to discover these sulfur balls in the region. When William Albright and Melvin
Kyle set out to find the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in 1924, they, too, found these balls of brimstone; however, they
were looking for the sites at the southern end of the Dead Sea:"...a region on which brimstone was rained will show
brimstone. Well, it does; we picked up pure sulfur, in pieces as big as the end of my thumb. It is mixed with the marl of
the mountains on the west side of the sea, and now is to be found scattered along the shore of the sea even on the east
side, some four or five miles distant from the ledge that contains the stratum. It has somehow scattered far and wide over
this plain." "Explorations at Sodom" by Dr. Melvin Kyle, 1928, pp. 52-53.
Influenced by the common misconception that the cities were at the southern end, these men obviously were on the very
sites, yet misinterpreted them as being "marl", or an earthy limestone deposit used as fertilizer on soils deficient in
limestone. And the reason that these sulfur balls are found throughout the entire plain is simple -- the Bible says the
entire plain was included in the destruction of the cities: GEN 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and
all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.


Sodom was by far the largest site, and a bit more difficult to get to. It is located behind Mt. Sodom in the plain that
extends right up to the mountains, and it requires more walking and difficult climbing to get to. But, the sulfur balls were
there also.
As we mentioned, the sites have suffered a tremendous amount of erosion and the best preserved, by far, is "Gomorrah".
The site, "Admah", at the northern end of the Dead Sea, is exposed to a great deal of wind as it is located in an area not
as well protected by the mountains. Also, its ash has turned sort of brownish on the outside, probably due to something
in the wind settling on it. Whenever a section breaks away, the pure white color can still be seen inside............

note: this is a cut and paste and not the text in its entirety. see the following link for the full text.

Newsletter 10: January 1995 http://www.anchorstone.com/content/blogcategory/31/52/

[mikeledo]

Mikeledo: Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed an alternate site for the city of Ai at Khirbet el-Maqatir. The location of Ai you mentioned was destroyed in the Early Bronze Age at Et Tell, which I agree is the Ai destroyed by the Israelites. Some scholars place the destuction of Ai during Bronze Age 2. In 1994, Vendyl Jones discovered at his Gilgal site Geder boundary walls dated to Early Bronze Age up to the Middle Bronze Age. This indicates the Israelites arrived into the area prior to the time when Jericho and Ai were destroyed as recorded accurately in the Book of Joshua. A little known fact: Morgan Robertson wrote the book 'The Wreck of the Titan' which is an accurate prediction of the sinking of the RMS Titanic 14 years before the event happened. Moses learned about his death from G-D at Mt. Sinai forty years before he died at Mt. Nebo. So, It's not impossible for someone to know or write about their death before it happens. People have been know to have premonitions of their deaths. My Mother had a premonition of her death before she died in 1991. So much for your multiple authors of the Torah Documentary Hypothesis anti-semetic gerbage!

Not only did Moses write about his death and also the fact no one knew where they buried him. Again Impossible. You may believe it if you want, that is certainly your right, but to me it is nonsense.

Many writers have compared the similarities between the fictional wreck and the real disaster, but Gardner, in his book The Wreck of the Titanic Foretold? is the first to go on and contrast the differences between the two events as well. The Titan was filled to capacity, for example, while the Titanic was barely half full. Titanic’s last night was clear and cloud free, the Titan was racing through heavy fog. The survival rate between the two is also very different. On Titanic, roughly a third of the people survived, while the Titan went down with just about everyone aboard, there were only thirteen survivors.

Gardner misses the single most striking difference between the two events. In Robertson’s story, the Titan does not sideswipe a berg, the ship actually steams right up onto an upward sloping ice shelf. The Titan then tips over onto its starboard side and slides back into the ocean, where it quickly floods and sinks.
The original book was called Futility, but when it was reissued after the Titanic disaster, it was renamed Futility, or The Wreck of the Titan

http://titanicbooksite.com/RobertsonMorgan.html


The Early Bronze Age dating of the stone walls of Jericho falling is supported with C-14 dating. The walls were burned. The heat caused the stones to crack and fall. This destruction corresponds at the same time Ai fell.

Those pther scholars are wrong at the dating. What they do is "intellectual cheating" in order to confuse the sheep. The sites were destroyed in EB III, circa 2400 BCE. This period is sometimes called MB I, although the date for Jericho and Ai falling is the same. Since the Middle Bronze age extends all the way to 1500-1600 BCE. "scholars" will incorrectly use this date in order to get something close to they Bible "story." Again you have proven this is neither anti-Semetic or garbarge. Thank you for playing. Next!

[mikeledo]

Mikeledo: According to a copy of the Genesis Apocryphon found in Cave 4 at Qumran the account of Abram and Lot in Egypt is recorded. So you're making a mistake by removing that section to try to prove that Sodom and Gomorrah were in the southern part of the Dead Sea region.

The DSS document was written centuries after the time the mythical story was created. There was no way for them to factual know anything of that era, proving their version is completely fabricated.

[mikeledo]

Who was the guy who did diving in the Red Sea and took video of what looked like a chariot wheel with a protruding rim? The story was they took the video (a few minutes long) and later dives were obscured by silt. I remember seeing the video and wanting to be sceptical, but I couldn't think of anything that size and shape that could have been dumped there. :nsm:

Notice that the "evidence" is only at the coast lines, even though the Egtptian army would have been stretched across the entire Red Sea. No evidence has been found to show that. Since there is no dating of the evidence he presents, assuming they were chariot parts, there is no way as yet to determine if they were Egyptian chariots or even later Roman chariots. One could "guess" based on the size of the coral and a constant growth rate the age of the deposit, but since the video didn't do that I must presume that information would go contrary to what he was trying to prove.

[runtmc2jc]

Notice that the "evidence" is only at the coast lines, even though the Egtptian army would have been stretched across the entire Red Sea. No evidence has been found to show that. Since there is no dating of the evidence he presents, assuming they were chariot parts, there is no way as yet to determine if they were Egyptian chariots or even later Roman chariots. One could "guess" based on the size of the coral and a constant growth rate the age of the deposit, but since the video didn't do that I must presume that information would go contrary to what he was trying to prove.


I believe that was ron wyatt's group. according to one of their websites, anchorstone.com, there is a relatively shallow 'land bridge' across that section of the eastern arm of the Red Sea, with deep drop-offs on either side. I pulled some sat photos of the area and you can see a wadi running across the sinai towards a huge beach (Nuweiba - sp?), which does fit the narrative of the biblical account. of course it follows then that the mount of law-giving would not be on the sinai peninsula, but rather on the arabian peninsula and the years of wandering there as well. the wyatt team has allegedly located this mount (jebel el-lawz) as well as several other prominent landmarks mentioned in the biblical narrative. of course this is all subject to verification, and i don't believe the government of saudi arabia is too liberal in allowing the infidels in to dig/research, especially if the results of such investigation would give more credence to the Jewish nation.

[runtmc2jc]

:lol:
You know it!

(For anyone who's lurking, it's the title song and album title of the Daniel Amos cd that's my avatar at the moment.)


if you have any desire to discuss DA, we could initiate a new thread in the amphitheater....peace

[Dave G]

if you have any desire to discuss DA, we could initiate a new thread in the amphitheater....peace

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=21814&highlight=daniel+amos

It's been a while since we used this thread, but it's still good.:smile:

[mikeledo]

I believe that was ron wyatt's group. according to one of their websites, anchorstone.com, there is a relatively shallow 'land bridge' across that section of the eastern arm of the Red Sea, with deep drop-offs on either side. I pulled some sat photos of the area and you can see a wadi running across the sinai towards a huge beach (Nuweiba - sp?), which does fit the narrative of the biblical account. of course it follows then that the mount of law-giving would not be on the sinai peninsula, but rather on the arabian peninsula and the years of wandering there as well. the wyatt team has allegedly located this mount (jebel el-lawz) as well as several other prominent landmarks mentioned in the biblical narrative. of course this is all subject to verification, and i don't believe the government of saudi arabia is too liberal in allowing the infidels in to dig/research, especially if the results of such investigation would give more credence to the Jewish nation.

In my cosmic myth version of the tale the crossing would take place at the southern most region of the Red Sea, similar to the discovery. I of course opt for an EB III period for this event. Likewise the the settlement on the Saudi Mt. Sinai also date from the Early Bronze Age. Egypt was affected by famine and plagues during this period. Asians had entered Egypt and were unwanted. Pepi II who reigned for 94 years reigned the same period that the Midrash claimed the Pharaoh of Moses (first pharaoh) had reigned and the only pharaoh in all of Egyptian history to do so.

There was also meteor activity during this period, suspect to be the cause of the Great Famine as we know at least 7 of them struck the earth within a 100 year period. This would later associate shooting stars with great disasters as in the book of Revelation and the star "Wormwood" expected to poison the waters and kill one third of the planet, just as what happened during the Great Famine period.

[shunyadragon]

In my cosmic myth version of the tale the crossing would take place at the southern most region of the Red Sea, similar to the discovery. I of course opt for an EB III period for this event. Likewise the the settlement on the Saudi Mt. Sinai also date from the Early Bronze Age. Egypt was affected by famine and plagues during this period. Asians had entered Egypt and were unwanted. Pepi II who reigned for 94 years reigned the same period that the Midrash claimed the Pharaoh of Moses (first pharaoh) had reigned and the only pharaoh in all of Egyptian history to do so.

There was also meteor activity during this period, suspect to be the cause of the Great Famine as we know at least 7 of them struck the earth within a 100 year period. This would later associate shooting stars with great disasters as in the book of Revelation and the star "Wormwood" expected to poison the waters and kill one third of the planet, just as what happened during the Great Famine period.

Can you provide some references to the seven meteor impacts? As a geologist I know of no significant meteor impacts that would alter the climate of the earth in this period. The famine that lead to the demise of Old Egyptian Kingdom was one of the periodic world drought that has been well documented.

[ArchaicGuy]

Bandecoot: Seventy percent of all Archaeological excavations begins first in the local library. Which means reading and researching ancient texts, old maps long before the archaeologist's spades and shovels dig into the earth.

[bandecoot]

Bandecoot: Seventy percent of all Archaeological excavations begins first in the local library. Which means reading and researching ancient texts, old maps long before the archaeologist's spades and shovels dig into the earth.


Did you teach your mothers mother to extract the albumin and yolk from from an oviod avian fetal container? :smile:

I do Archaeology, or I did as an undergrad. My primary lecturer was Tom Loy. If anyone had taken the time to ask me about what information I had on the possible location of S&G I would have shared it with them. Rath And Shaub did 2 prelim surveys and a few sondages in 72 and 79. To the best of my knowledge the sites remain unexcavated. They in fact found 5 possible sites but only 2 were close enough together to be S&G. They even published their surveys in the BAR. It took me about 25 seconds to find what had been a vauge memory about someone doing a survey around the Dead Sea looking for the twin cities.

You have noted of course that you are the only person to have addressed my comments? I stand by my comments about armchair Archaeologists.

[ArchaicGuy]

Bandecoot: I stand by my comments to Mikeledo of the multiple authorship of the Torah variation of the Documentary Hypothesis being anti-semetic garbage. I have participated on archaeological excavations in Israel since 1992 beginning with Vendyl Jones Research Institutes.

[ArchaicGuy]

There is one important fact that rules out Bab edh Dhra (Sodom), Numeira (Gomorrah), Es Safi (Bela or Zoar) and the anchorstone locations for Sodom and Gomorrah near Masada is the fact there are desert plants growing in the soil. According to Genesis when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed the vegetation and the ground where the cities stood was also destroyed. What is meant by the ground being destroyed is it's ability to germinate any seeds. At the archaeological sites for the cities in Jordan and locations near Masada desert plants are obviously growing indicating the soil is still fertile.

[mikeledo]

Can you provide some references to the seven meteor impacts? As a geologist I know of no significant meteor impacts that would alter the climate of the earth in this period. The famine that lead to the demise of Old Egyptian Kingdom was one of the periodic world drought that has been well documented.

I would be more than happy to:

Cambridge Conference Correspondence 2005: abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc121597.html From an article in the Sunday Times (U.K. December 14, 1997) : METEOR SHOWERS BLOTTED OUT MAN'S FIRST CIVILISATIONS Rajeev Syal

“A CATACLYSMIC shower of giant meteors destroyed the great Bronze
Age civilisations in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece by provoking a
series of natural disasters.

“New archeological and astronomical evidence indicates that a huge number of
extraterrestrial bodies caused famine, flooding and bushfires thousands of
miles wide that led to the collapse of the world's first sophisticated
civilisations.

“The findings could solve the puzzle of why successful empires from across
the globe all apparently collapsed at roughly the same time in about 2350BC,
despite the fact that they were independent of each other and all
flourishing until their sudden demise.

“Dr Benny Peiser, an anthropologist from Liverpool John Moores University,
has analysed 500 excavation reports and climatological studies from the
sites of ancient civilisations and found they all suffered huge changes in
climate at exactly the same time. ...

“British scientists have also identified at least seven impact craters which
were formed within a century of 2350BC, which they believe may have been
part of a meteor storm.

“A new finding by Victor Clube, an astrophysicist at Oxford University,
appears to confirm Peiser's theory that meteorites were
responsible for the Bronze Age catastrophe. Clube claims to have
identified a meteor cluster in an orbit around Jupiter which has
collided with the Earth about every 3,000 years.

“He believes it was this shower that caused the Ice Age, and then returned in
a later cycle to prompt the cataclysm of 2350BC. Meteors from the same
stream struck the Earth on a return orbit in AD500, though with less force
than previously, causing flash floods in the Middle East. The next impact is
predicted for 3000...”

[shunyadragon]

I would be more than happy to:

Cambridge Conference Correspondence 2005: abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc121597.html From an article in the Sunday Times (U.K. December 14, 1997) : METEOR SHOWERS BLOTTED OUT MAN'S FIRST CIVILISATIONS Rajeev Syal

“A CATACLYSMIC shower of giant meteors destroyed the great Bronze
Age civilisations in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece by provoking a
series of natural disasters.

“New archeological and astronomical evidence indicates that a huge number of
extraterrestrial bodies caused famine, flooding and bushfires thousands of
miles wide that led to the collapse of the world's first sophisticated
civilisations.

“The findings could solve the puzzle of why successful empires from across
the globe all apparently collapsed at roughly the same time in about 2350BC,
despite the fact that they were independent of each other and all
flourishing until their sudden demise.

“Dr Benny Peiser, an anthropologist from Liverpool John Moores University,
has analysed 500 excavation reports and climatological studies from the
sites of ancient civilisations and found they all suffered huge changes in
climate at exactly the same time. ...

“British scientists have also identified at least seven impact craters which
were formed within a century of 2350BC, which they believe may have been
part of a meteor storm.

“A new finding by Victor Clube, an astrophysicist at Oxford University,
appears to confirm Peiser's theory that meteorites were
responsible for the Bronze Age catastrophe. Clube claims to have
identified a meteor cluster in an orbit around Jupiter which has
collided with the Earth about every 3,000 years.

“He believes it was this shower that caused the Ice Age, and then returned in
a later cycle to prompt the cataclysm of 2350BC. Meteors from the same
stream struck the Earth on a return orbit in AD500, though with less force
than previously, causing flash floods in the Middle East. The next impact is
predicted for 3000...”

As a geologist I would like to see references to the catastrophic impact locations like the older impact crator in Arizona. As far as I know there are not enough such impact locations known to exist to document such an event, or other possible evidence. If such an event occured with a 3000 year cycle, a corresponding event force would be needed to support this claim, which of course did not happen in 500 AD. The floods (which floods are documented to be more severe than regularly occur?) would not be attributed to the meteor shower that occured at that time. The catastrophic event of ~4200 years ago was a drought and not floods. The known cyclic meteorite showers do not represent cataclismic events as proposed.

I contend that Earth climatic cycles of ~1500 years better explain these events than a catastrophic meteor shower. There is significant evidence that these cycles have caused a significant impact similar to the event ~4200 years ago, where the evidence is lacking for a catastrophic meteor shower.

See thread Something happened ~4,200 years ago at;

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59126

[mikeledo]

As a geologist I would like to see references to the catastrophic impact locations like the older impact crator in Arizona. As far as I know there are not enough such impact locations known to exist to document such an event, or other possible evidence. If such an event occured with a 3000 year cycle, a corresponding event force would be needed to support this claim, which of course did not happen in 500 AD. The floods (which floods are documented to be more severe than regularly occur?) would not be attributed to the meteor shower that occured at that time. The catastrophic event of ~4200 years ago was a drought and not floods. The known cyclic meteorite showers do not represent cataclismic events as proposed.

I contend that Earth climatic cycles of ~1500 years better explain these events than a catastrophic meteor shower. There is significant evidence that these cycles have caused a significant impact similar to the event ~4200 years ago, where the evidence is lacking for a catastrophic meteor shower.

See thread Something happened ~4,200 years ago at;

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59126

I would like to see references to those impact craters myself. And I figure since YOU are a geologist you should be able to find them real easy for us as there is none on line. Rather than simply dismiss them because there are not easy references to specific sites that a layman can find, I would contend as a geologist you would have the connections with the information I have provided to do a real study of those sites.

[runtmc2jc]

for some reason, shuny is afraid or unwilling to embrace the evidence which clearly points to catastrophes of huge or global proportions.

[shunyadragon]

for some reason, shuny is afraid or unwilling to embrace the evidence which clearly points to catastrophes of huge or global proportions.

How do explain the fact that 95%+ of all the sediment deposits of the world are continuous and non-catastrophic. You have only present evidence of local catastrophies that are quite similar to what is happening today.

[runtmc2jc]

How do explain the fact that 95%+ of all the sediment deposits of the world are continuous and non-catastrophic. You have only present evidence of local catastrophies that are quite similar to what is happening today.

i guess that other 5% must be a real mother!

[rogero]

How do explain the fact that 95%+ of all the sediment deposits of the world are continuous and non-catastrophic. You have only present evidence of local catastrophies that are quite similar to what is happening today.

i guess that other 5% must be a real mother!

Because if you had global catastrophism, 100% of contemperaneous deposits at the time of the catastrophe would indicate these cataclysmic events. This would be even more manifest for the geologically recent catastrophes that you and mentor advocate.

Think about it... :lol:

R

[runtmc2jc]

[/BOX]

i guess that other 5% must be a real mother!

Because if you had global catastrophism, 100% of contemperaneous deposits at the time of the catastrophe would indicate these cataclysmic events. This would be even more manifest for the geologically recent catastrophes that you and mentor advocate.

Think about it... :lol:

R[/QUOTE]


we've already discussed in the thread (OEC or YEC...either way, what's important is realization of universal flood), that you and shuny had no real answers for the ivory islands in the arctic, the caves of England, the aquatic graveyards, the Cumberland cave, whales in the mountains, fissures on several continents crammed full of bones (not because of predation), etc. there's plenty more to bring up... you're main complaint was the age of the sources cited, by i submit to you, the closer to the actual find, the more accurate the source should be. (Again we're talking only the evidences, not the cause of the evidence). Those publications from first-hand accounts should be the most reliable, because with the passage of time, weathering, looting, and/or commercial exploitation, etc., could compromise the sites. Now if you want to talk about theories as to what caused these anomalies, i agree that more recent publications may have access to other data which could lead to different interpretations of the evidences, however this does not invalidate the original sources in any way, especially since i did not mention (nor for the most part do these sources) a causation, a la dr. velikovsky. i know you recall, even in your admitted advanced age, that i requested several times not to even consider any theories of causation, instead i asked we just discuss the evidences as presented.....grace and peace to you.

[rogero]

Because if you had global catastrophism, 100% of contemperaneous deposits at the time of the catastrophe would indicate these cataclysmic events. This would be even more manifest for the geologically recent catastrophes that you and mentor advocate.

Think about it... :lol:

R


we've already discussed in the thread (OEC or YEC...either way, what's important is realization of universal flood), that you and shuny had no real answers for the ivory islands in the arctic, the caves of England, the aquatic graveyards, the Cumberland cave, whales in the mountains, fissures on several continents crammed full of bones (not because of predation), etc. there's plenty more to bring up... you're main complaint was the age of the sources cited, by i submit to you, the closer to the actual find, the more accurate the source should be. (Again we're talking only the evidences, not the cause of the evidence). Those publications from first-hand accounts should be the most reliable, because with the passage of time, weathering, looting, and/or commercial exploitation, etc., could compromise the sites. Now if you want to talk about theories as to what caused these anomalies, i agree that more recent publications may have access to other data which could lead to different interpretations of the evidences, however this does not invalidate the original sources in any way, especially since i did not mention (nor for the most part do these sources) a causation, a la dr. velikovsky. i know you recall, even in your admitted advanced age, that i requested several times not to even consider any theories of causation, instead i asked we just discuss the evidences as presented.....grace and peace to you.

Oh, I thought we had real answers and you didn't understand them. Sorry for the misconception! :teeth:

Forgive for not understanding (or caring) much for your very intelligent, creative, amusing, and crazy-as-a-loon mentor --- but, is he advocating global catastrophes? Yes or no? If yes --- then apparently you failed to comprehend my last post. Truly shocking... :lol:

Smooches,

R

P.S. Adding "Dr." to the loony's name doesn't contribute a fig to the gravitas of the reputation of the individual in queston. Heck, I know lots of wackos with doctorates (including, errr..., ahh... -- oh forget it!). Argumentum ad graduum (or whatever the heck it's called) ain't gonna get you anywhere. :wink:

P.P.S. You really gotta work on that TWeb "quote" dealy. A free gratis patch-up this time 'round...

[ArchaicGuy]

Runtmc2jc: Today I had some good fortune in finding my great-grandfather Reverend William Thomas Lambert's old Index Bible. It dates from 1906. The maps indicated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah located with Gomorrah on the north part of the Dead Sea west bank and Sodom was located on the south part of the Dead Sea west bank. Gilgal was located east of Jericho on one map the other map Gilgal was located southeast of Jericho. The southeast location for Gilgal almost matches Vendyl Jones location for the site.

[rogero]

Runtmc2jc: Today I had some good fortune in finding my great-grandfather Reverend William Thomas Lambert's old Index Bible. It dates from 1906. The maps indicated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah located with Gomorrah on the north part of the Dead Sea west bank and Sodom was located on the south part of the Dead Sea west bank. Gilgal was located east of Jericho on one map the other map Gilgal was located southeast of Jericho. The southeast location for Gilgal almost matches Vendyl Jones location for the site.

So, what does your Great-grandpappy's Index Bible maps have to do with the issue at hand? Perhaps it's that the current crop of seminary and legitimate graduate school-trained Bible scholars are unaware of this profound evidence?

What's your point? Is it that --d (N.B., I'm trying to be respectful of your cultish YHWH beliefs) is revealing some specific evidence to you? If so, thanks for sharing that with us, but please do explain the nuances, 'cus so far I'm understandibly very confused.

R

[runtmc2jc]

Oh, I thought we had real answers and you didn't understand them. Sorry for the misconception! :teeth:

Forgive for not understanding (or caring) much for your very intelligent, creative, amusing, and crazy-as-a-loon mentor --- but, is he advocating global catastrophes? Yes or no? If yes --- then apparently you failed to comprehend my last post. Truly shocking... :lol:

Smooches,

R

P.S. Adding "Dr." to the loony's name doesn't contribute a fig to the gravitas of the reputation of the individual in queston. Heck, I know lots of wackos with doctorates (including, errr..., ahh... -- oh forget it!). Argumentum ad graduum (or whatever the heck it's called) ain't gonna get you anywhere. :wink:

P.P.S. You really gotta work on that TWeb "quote" dealy. A free gratis patch-up this time 'round...

Quote: Originally posted by rogero the Great

you crack me up!

[PennyDreadful]

Ever heard of Ron Wyatt? http://www.wyattmuseum.com/

[ArchaicGuy]

Runtmc2jc: I thought you would be interested to hear my good news of finding my great-grandfather's 1906 Indexed Holy Bible. I was surprised because I was cleaning an old cabinet when I found the Bible. I had forgotten my family still had it. The bible itself is in not very good condition. I loved seeing the old black and white photos showing the Holy Lands before the major excavations in the Twentieth Century. It has four maps. Two maps show the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah on the west bank of the Dead Sea. Sodom is located in the south near the Ascent of Akrabbim in Edom and Gomorrah in the North in the vicinty of Qumran. I saw on an old map of Palestine dated to 1854 on the web that showed Sodom and Gomorrah in the same places as indicated on the 1906 Indexed Holy Bible maps. The surprising find was one of the maps showed Gilgal southeast of Jericho close to the site Vendyl Jones has determined to be Gilgal. Though the Gilgal site indicated on the map is about a mile to two miles north from Vendyl's site.

[runtmc2jc]

Runtmc2jc: I thought you would be interested to hear my good news of finding my great-grandfather's 1906 Indexed Holy Bible. I was surprised because I was cleaning an old cabinet when I found the Bible. I had forgotten my family still had it. The bible itself is in not very good condition. I loved seeing the old black and white photos showing the Holy Lands before the major excavations in the Twentieth Century. It has four maps. Two maps show the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah on the west bank of the Dead Sea. Sodom is located in the south near the Ascent of Akrabbim in Edom and Gomorrah in the North in the vicinty of Qumran. I saw on an old map of Palestine dated to 1854 on the web that showed Sodom and Gomorrah in the same places as indicated on the 1906 Indexed Holy Bible maps. The surprising find was one of the maps showed Gilgal southeast of Jericho close to the site Vendyl Jones has determined to be Gilgal. Though the Gilgal site indicated on the map is about a mile to two miles north from Vendyl's site.


that's very cool. i myself am a lover of old texts, and have a mini-library of my own spanning several different genre's of study. Were the sites indicated on the maps verified or theorized?

[ArchaicGuy]

Runtmc2jc: On the maps in the 1906 Indexed Holy Bible it would be a mixture of both verified and theorised sites. The locations for Gilgal east of Jericho on one map, southeast on another map would definitely be theorised in 1906. The sites for Sodom and Gomorrah were said to be partially submerged by the Dead Sea and partially exposed on the shoreline. The site mentioned on the maps as Gomorrah on the Dead Sea's northern shore was verified by Israeli archaeologist Pesach Bar Adon not as Gomorrah but as either Medine or Mezine? They were two of the cities mentioned in the Book of Joshua. I'll have to check my old notes and the videotape I have when Vendyl showed us the site in 1992 which of the two cities Pesach Bar Adon found.