Believers in the lost Ark

[Bob Jenkins]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1015350,00.html

Treating myth as fact misunderstands the meaning of religion

Karen Armstrong
Saturday August 9, 2003
The Guardian

The explorer who discovered the Titanic beneath the Atlantic in 1985 is setting out on another underwater expedition to document Noah's flood. The Black Sea was originally a freshwater lake that in ancient times became inundated by the salty Mediterranean. Robert Ballard believes that this was a cataclysmic event that occurred about 7,500 years ago, and was possibly the deluge described in the Bible.
Ballard's critics are sceptical: they argue that the infiltration of the Black Sea was a gradual process that occurred much earlier and over a long period of time. They accuse Ballard of using Noah to sex up his material for maximum publicity.

Christian fundamentalists will expect great things of Ballard's expedition. American creationists, who believe that the book of Genesis gives a scientifically accurate account of the origins of life, have long discussed Noah's flood. Some have even led archaeological expeditions to Mount Ararat in Turkey, in the hope of unearthing the Ark, and proving the literal truth of scripture once and for all.

Other creationists are more cautious, pointing out that the Ark is unlikely to have survived the ravages of time. But all Christian fundamentalists are passionately convinced that the Bible describes a historical deluge that destroyed all life on earth. Noah's flood was not a local event, as some suggest; it was universal, and even covered the US, creating the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls.

The creationists claim to study the physical effects of Noah's flood in order to disprove the theory of evolution, using carbon dating methods and modern geological data, and insist on their constitutional right to teach "creation science" in the public schools.

Most importantly, the creationists argue that fossils are simply relics of the flood. After the waters had subsided, exposing millions of rotting carcasses, God caused a powerful wind to blow, which buried them under a mound of trees and earth that later solidified and became rocks, oil and coal. The flood had killed the smallest creatures before the larger animals, which had congregated on hilltops and were buried at a later stage of the storm, so the fossil record does not reveal a truly temporal evolution. Noah saved a pair of each species, just as the Bible records, even though to accommodate them all, the Ark must have been as large as eight goods trains with 65 livestock trucks apiece.

Needless to say, Ballard does not subscribe to these ideas. Yet by mentioning Noah in the context of a serious scientific expedition, he is unwittingly helping to perpetuate a widespread but erroneous understanding of the nature of religious truth. The search for Noah's flood is as irrelevant as an attempt to find the "real" Middlemarch or Cranford. Like George Eliot and Elizabeth Gaskell, the authors of Genesis are not writing history, but are engaged in an imaginative investigation of the human predicament.

Flooding was a frequent and destructive occurrence in ancient Mesopotamia and a common metaphor for political and social dissolution. In Babylonia, the poems Atrahasis and The Epic of Gilgamesh (around 1300 BC) were part of a long-established epic tradition, which saw a massive deluge as marking the transition from the primordial age, when the gods had intimate relationships with human beings, to the present day, when the divine had become a distant, shadowy reality. Noah's flood cannot be understood outside this literary genre.

Genesis has preserved two accounts of the flood, which were combined by a later redactor to form the extant text: the so-called Yahwist epic (around the ninth century) and the sixth century priestly source. Neither of our authors is interested in giving an accurate description of a historical flood. Both use an old story to explore the same theological problems as the Babylonians, though they arrive at slightly different conclusions.

Thus in the Babylonian epics the deluge was caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the gods, who were appalled when they saw the extent of the devastation, and decided that henceforth they would withdraw from human affairs. Genesis, however, exonerates God and put the blame squarely on human wickedness.

But even so, unlike some Christians today, the Yahwist has no easy answers and like the Babylonians his story shows a new separation from the sacred. In the old days, God had been a frequent, friendly visitor to the Garden of Eden, but now the divine can seem cruel, arbitrary and incomprehensible.

The priestly author was writing for Jews who had lost their homeland and had been taken into exile. He makes the flood story foreshadow his story of the Israelites' 40 years in the wilderness in Exodus and Numbers. He is not interested in giving us information about the time of either Noah or Moses, but is addressing a problem of his own time. Like the flood and the wilderness years, the exile of the Jews is a period of transition. It is true that the old world has been destroyed, but there is still hope. A new order, a new world will emerge.

Both authors, in their different ways, are looking into the heart of darkness. Religious truth does not stand or fall by the historicity of its scriptural narratives. It will survive only if it enables people to find meaning and value when they are overwhelmed by the despair that is an inescapable part of the human condition. When we are discussing the meaning of life and the death of meaning, the historicity of the flood becomes an irrelevant distraction from the main issue. We are dealing not with history or science but with myth.

Today in popular parlance, a myth is something that did not happen, so to claim that a biblical story is mythical is to deny its truth. But before the advent of our scientific modernity, myth recounted an event that had - in some sense - happened once, but which also happened all the time. It was never possible to interpret a myth in terms of objective reason.

There were two ways of arriving at truth, which Plato called mythos and logos (reason). They complemented each other and were of equal stature; both were essential. Unlike myth, logos had to relate accurately to the external world: from the very earliest days, we used it to create effective weapons and to run our societies efficiently.

But humans are also meaning-seeking creatures, who fall very easily into despair. When faced with tragedy, reason is silent and has nothing to say. It was mythology and its accompanying rituals that showed people how to acquire the strength to go on.

As a result of our scientific revolution, however, logos achieved such spectacular results in the west that myth was discredited. By the 19th century, believers and sceptics alike began to read the biblical myths as though they were logoi.

But the biblical writers would have been astonished to hear about a scientific expedition to find the "real" flood. In the premodern perspective, mythos and logos each had its own sphere of competence. If you confused them, you had bad science - like that of the creationists. You also had bad religion. Until we recover a sense of the mythical, our scriptures will remain opaque, and our faith - as well as our unbelief - will be misplaced.

[Little John]

:help: I think he lost me on this one.....It DID happen, and that's that......right? :hrm:

[Bob Jenkins]

No (I think). Both the article's author and I fell that the Great Flood never happened but that myth can be a great source of truth. The error is in devoting so much time and energy into proving the histocricy of an event that sometimes the spiritual benefit is lost or lessened.

[Socratism]

The usual liberal rationalizations being proposed as some sort of superior "wisdom".

There is no way that there would be "truth" in the account of the Flood if it had not actually happened.

All these ideas about who actually wrote the Bible are completely devoid of any evidence to support them.

On the other hand, the discovery of the "signatures" still present in the Genesis stories indicates that they were written by individuals who actually witnessed the events, and were merely edited into a single document by Moses.

If the flood stories in Genesis were preserved by the survivors of the Ark, it is no wonder that all cultures around the world have "myths" of the great watery catastrophe that left only a few human survivors. The stories have in many cases been garbled to be sure, but still recognizable as having a common source.

[Bob Jenkins]

The usual liberal rationalizations being proposed as some sort of superior "wisdom".

There is no way that there would be "truth" in the account of the Flood if it had not actually happened

I see nothing superior in the wisdom of the myth. It, to me, is an alternative from other cultures that actuates the spiritual aspect of humankind

I can easily see a "truth" in the flood. .One only has to contemplate the wonder of a great feat of a supernatural being. How else but to describe "Noah saved a pair of each species, just as the Bible records, even though to accommodate them all, the Ark must have been as large as eight goods trains with 65 livestock trucks apiece."

All these ideas about who actually wrote the Bible are completely devoid of any evidence to support them

Exactly! And not confined to the mention of those in the article. It is a glass house from which you attack other competent scholarship.

On the other hand, the discovery of the "signatures" still present in the Genesis stories indicates that they were written by individuals who actually witnessed the events, and were merely edited into a single document by Moses.

Are you saying that Noah, et. al., wrote down their exeriences? I have not seen any scholarship that would support that opinion.

If the flood stories in Genesis were preserved by the survivors of the Ark, it is no wonder that all cultures around the world have "myths" of the great watery catastrophe that left only a few human survivors. The stories have in many cases been garbled to be sure, but still recognizable as having a common source.

It is possible, that the Biblical story was the basis for the mentioned myths of neighboring peoples (I do not have dates in which to verify or disprove that notion) but it is highly unlikely that the Biblical transference made it's way into other language groups listed below. Each of these groupings indicate a country or tribe that has a flood myth. Many precede the culture that documented the Biblical myth and others are isolated from it's influence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Asia

Vogul
Samoyed (north Siberia)
Yenisey-Ostyak (north central Siberia), Kamchadale (northeast Siberia)
Altaic (central Asia), Tuvinian (Soyot) (north of Mongolia)
Mongolia, Buryat (eastern Siberia)
Sagaiye (eastern Siberia)
Russian
Hindu, Bhil (central India), Kamar (Raipur District, Central India), Assam
Tamil (southern India)
Lepcha (Sikkim), Tibet, Singpho (Assam), Lushai (Assam), Lisu (northwest Yunnan, China), Lolo (southwestern China), Jino (southern Yunnan, China), Karen (Burma), Chingpaw (Upper Burma)
China
Korea
Munda (north-central India), Santal (Bengal), Ho (southwestern Bengal)
Bahnar (Cochin China), Kammu (northern Thailand)
Andaman Islands (Bay of Bengal)
Zhuang (China), Sui (southern Guizhou, China), Shan (Burma)
Tsuwo (Formosa interior), Bunun (Formosa interior), Ami (eastern Taiwan)
Benua-Jakun (Malay Peninsula), Kelantan (Malay Peninsula), Ifugao (Philippines), Kiangan Ifugao, Atá (Philippines), Mandaya (Philippines), Tinguian (Luzon, Philippines)
Batak (Sumatra), Nias (an island west of Sumatra), Engano (another island west of Sumatra), Dusun (British North Borneo), Dyak (Borneo), Ot-Danom (Dutch Borneo), Toradja (central Celebes), Alfoor (between Celebes and New Guinea), Rotti (southwest of Timor), Nage (Flores)

Australia
Arnhem Land (northern Northern Territory)
Maung (Goulburn Islands, Arnhem Land), Gunwinggu (northern Arnhem Land)
Gumaidj (Arnhem Land)
Manger (Arnhem Land)
Fitzroy River area (Western Australia)
Australian, Mount Elliot (coastal Queensland), Western Australia, Andingari (South Australia), Wiranggu (South Australia), Narrinyeri (South Australia), Victoria, Lake Tyres (Victoria), Kurnai (Gippsland, Victoria), southeast Australian
Maori (New Zealand)

Pacific Islands

Kabadi (New Guinea), Valman (northern New Guinea), Mamberao River (Irian Jaya), Samo-Kubo (western Papua New Guinea), Papua New Guinea
Palau Islands (Micronesia), western Carolines
New Hebrides, Lifou (one of the Loyalty Islands), Fiji
Samoa, Nanumanga (Tuvalu, South Pacific), Mangaia (Cook Islands), Rakaanga (Cook Islands), Raiatea (Leeward Group, French Polynesia), Tahiti, Hawaii

North America

Innuit, Eskimo (Orowignarak, Alaska), Norton Sound Eskimo, Central Eskimo, Tchiglit Eskimo (Arctic Ocean), Herschel Island Eskimo, Netsilik Eskimo, Greenlander
Tlingit (southern Alaska coast), Hareskin (Alaska), Tinneh (Alaska and south), Loucheux (Dindjie) (Alaska), Dogrib and Slave (Tinneh tribes), Kaska (northern inland British Columbia), Thompson Indians (British Columbia), Sarcee (Alberta), Tsetsaut
Haida (Queen Charlotte Is., British Columbia), Tsimshian (British Columbia)
Kwakiutl (British Columbia)
Kootenay (southeast British Columbia), Squamish (British Columbia), Bella Coola (British Columbia), Lillooet (Green River, British Columbia), Makah (Cape Flattery, Washington), Klallam (northwest Washington), Skokomish (Washington), Skagit (Washington), Quillayute (Washington), Nisqually (Washington), Twana (Puget Sound, Washington), Kathlamet
Cascade Mountains
Spokana, Nez Perce, Cayuse (eastern Washington), Yakima (Washington), Warm Springs (Oregon), Joshua (southern Oregon), Smith River (northern California coast), Wintu (north central California), Maidu (central California), Northern Miwok (central California), Tuleyome Miwok (near Clear Lake, California), Olamentko Miwok (Bodega Bay, California) Ohlone (San Francisco to Monterey, California)
Kato (Mendocino County, California)
Shasta (northern California interior), Pomo (north central California), Salinan (California), Yuma (western Arizona, southern California), Havasupai (lower Colorado River)
Ashochimi (California)
Yurok (north California coast), Blackfoot (Alberta and Montana), Cree (Canada), Timagami Ojibway (Canada), Chippewa (Ontario, Minnesota, Wisconsin), Ottawa, Menomini (Wisconsin-Michigan border), Cheyenne (Minnesota), Yellowstone, Montagnais (northern Gulf of St. Lawrence), Micmac (eastern Maritime Canada), Algonquin (upper Ottowa River), Lenape (Delaware) (Delaware to New York)
Cherokee (Great Lakes area; eastern Tennessee)
Mandan (North Dakota), Lakota
Choctaw (Mississippi), Natchez (Lower Mississippi)
Chitimacha (Southern Louisiana)
Caddo (Oklahoma, Arkansas), Pawnee (Nebraska)
Navajo (Four Corners area), Jicarilla Apache (northeastern New Mexico)
Sia (northeast Arizona)
Acagchemem (near San Juan Capistrano, California), Luiseño (Southern California), Pima (southwest Arizona), Papago (Arizona), Hopi (northeast Arizona), Zuni (New Mexico)

Central America

Tarascan (northern Michoacan, Mexico), Michoacan (Mexico)
Yaqui (Sonoran, Northern Mexico), Tarahumara (Northern Mexico), Huichol (western Mexico), Cora (east of the Huichols), Tepecano (southeast of the Huichols), Tepehua (eastern Mexico), Toltec (Mexico), Nahua (central Mexico), Tlaxcalan (central Mexico)
Tlapanec (south central Mexico), Mixtec (northern Oaxaca, Mexico), Zapotec (Oaxaca, southern Mexico), Trique (Oaxaca, southern Mexico)
Totonac (eastern Mexico)
Chol (southern Mexico), Tzeltal (Chiapas, southern Mexico), Quiché (Guatemala), Maya (southern Mexico and Guatemala)
Popoluca (Veracruz, Mexico)
Nicaragua, Panama
Carib (Antilles)

South America

Acawai (Orinoco), Arekuna (Guyana), Makiritare (Venezuela), Macusi (British Guyana)
Muysca (Colombia), Yaruro (southern Venezuela)
Yanomamö (southern Venezuela)
Tamanaque (Orinoco), Arawak (Guyana), Pamary, Abedery, and Kataushy (Purus R., Brazil), Ipurina (Upper Amazon)
Jivaro (eastern Ecuador), Shuar (Andes)
Murato (eastern Ecuador)
Cañari (Quito, Ecuador)
Guanca and Chiquito (Peru)
Ancasmarca (near Cuzco, Peru), Canelos Quechua, Quechua, Inca (Peru), Colla (high Andes)
Chiriguano (southeast Bolivia)
Chorote (Eastern Paraguay)
Eastern Brazil (Rio de Janiero region), Eastern Brazil (Cape Frio region), Caraya (Araguaia River, central Brazil), Coroado (south Brazil)
Araucania (coastal Chile)
Toba (northern Argentina)
Selk'nam (southern tip of Argentina)
Yamana (Tierra del Fuego)

[JohnStevenson]

That is quite a listing of alternate cultures that also give testimony to a flood account. Indeed, some of them carry more than a few details that substantiate the Biblical account of a great flood.

- The fact of a flood
- A warning by God(s)
- Deliverance through the construction of a vessel
- All mankind destroyed
- Birds being sent out to determine the appearance of land
- The survival of the hero who then sacrifices to God(s)

The similarity of these various accounts suggests a common origin. Those who hold to the authority of the Bible suggest that this common origin was rooted in an actual historical event. The far-reaching locations at which this account is found would seem to point to universal ramifications.

[Bob Jenkins]

"The similarity of these various accounts suggests a common origin."

I think it does!

But certainly not in any historical sense. If you believe it as history, then you must account for the narrative of it coming from one source. That assumption has many, many problems.

If, however, your common source is myth - which IS universal - than you have none of the problems of proving histocricy. Myth would explain, quite succcintly, how the story originated in diverse, often isolated, communities. Histocricy fails in doing that.

[C. D. Ward]

Today @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196054#post196054)
JohnStevenson:

That is quite a listing of alternate cultures that also give testimony to a flood account. Indeed, some of them carry more than a few details that substantiate the Biblical account of a great flood.

- The fact of a flood
- A warning by God(s)
- Deliverance through the construction of a vessel
- All mankind destroyed
- Birds being sent out to determine the appearance of land
- The survival of the hero who then sacrifices to God(s)

The similarity of these various accounts suggests a common origin. Those who hold to the authority of the Bible suggest that this common origin was rooted in an actual historical event. The far-reaching locations at which this account is found would seem to point to universal ramifications.

Note, however, that many, many of the flood stories do NOT share those details. Some don't have ANY of them. That would seem to indicate that the details themselves are probably not part of the original event, but were added later.

However, FLOODING is a near universal phenomenon. As a "common origin" of flood myths, it is a prime suspect...

C. D. Ward

[geochron]

Floods in general are fairly common too, of course...

How many cultures across the world worshipped the sun and moon as Gods at one point? Does that mean they once were Gods?

[JohnStevenson]

Today @ 12:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196404#post196404)
geochron:Floods in general are fairly common too, of course...
How many cultures across the world worshipped the sun and moon as Gods at one point? Does that mean they once were Gods?
A mere story of a god and/or flood would be commonplace.
A story of the Son of God becoming flesh to die upon a cross as a sacrifice for sins and to subsequently rise from the dead might be a bit more specific and indicative of something more than a mere universal myth.

Likewise, there are both general flood stories as well as a number that contain some very specific similarities, even though they are from different localities.

[fundieRfunny]

If you'll look back through the flood stories, you'll find that the vast majority of them are from cultures that base their cities on or near flood plains. Egypt is a prime example of this, where it floods annually, and so they have a very rich flood mythology. Areas flood, and they flood good when their is more than the usual amount of rainfall. No surprises here.

[Socrates]

The enormous number of similarities is too great to be explained by independent river flooding, as shown by the graph below.

Also, the Black Sea flood nonsense hopelessly mismatches the biblical data. And it falls down scientifically as well, as recent data show. See Black Sea flood link to Noah sinking fast (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1211tj.asp).

[Bob Jenkins]

I wonder if we don't have a cart before the horse. Do you have any dates for those that contain strikingly the elements of the Biblical version and how do you account for the varied language groups and isolated locations?

[fundieRfunny]

Personally, I wonder if we could take an equally prevalent mythos of a different type and compare them. Say, maybe sun worship, or nature worship? Or more particularly a facet of one of the mythologies. Do you think hercules or one of the like would have an analogue in more than one area? Perhaps we might find that common themes run in many of the worlds historical mythologies? What do you think, a stretch? After all, humanity surviving calamity with the assistance of a god has got to be pretty special. One would think, anyway.

[Bob Jenkins]

fundieRfunny:
Personally, I wonder if we could take an equally prevalent mythos of a different type and compare them. Say, maybe sun worship, or nature worship? Or more particularly a facet of one of the mythologies. Do you think hercules or one of the like would have an analogue in more than one area? Perhaps we might find that common themes run in many of the worlds historical mythologies? What do you think, a stretch? After all, humanity surviving calamity with the assistance of a god has got to be pretty special. One would think, anyway.

While there is a body of scholarship that deals with comparitve mythology, we have begun this thread focusing on the mythological theme of floods.

I can recommend to you Joseph Campbell who has done much to bring comparative mythology to the layman.

[fundieRfunny]

Today @ 01:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196895#post196895)
Bob Jenkins:

fundieRfunny:


While there is a body of scholarship that deals with comparitve mythology, we have begun this thread focusing on the mythological theme of floods.

I can recommend to you Joseph Campbell who has done much to bring comparative mythology to the layman.


Thanks I'll check it out. But to give one over, I think there was an arkadian flood myth from 1650b.c. if I'm not misremembering, including the need to use many levels, and bitumen...course it only lasted 7 days, but hey it was noisy and all that. Gee, I wonder where the heb's copied their story from?

[Lion]

I read pitman and Ryan's book called Noah's Flood, although I think Ryan was the principal author. He gives quite a bit of space to the fact that the ocean levels at one time were some 550 feet lower worldwide. He doesn't say so directly, but it must have been due to the ice age. The med and black seas were dry at that time. The depth of the strait is barely 500 feet deep.

BTW, Ryan called for a conference in Sardinia to discuss the drying up of the Med this past summer.

Anyway it seems there was a rock barrier at the east end of the Bosporus which broke when the Med reflooded, presumably as the sea level rose and flooded the formerly fresh water lake. They learned that this was so because there were fresh water mussel shells from cores in the deepest part of the black sea The shells were c14 dated by woods hole lab using an ionization process.

Personally, I don't think the title Noah's Flood is accurate because the lowering of the sea level happened as a result of the ice age in the latter part of the flood. The ice age happened when the northern hemisphere got packed with ice so much it depressed a lot of Canada and northern Europe by 200 meters.

[shunyadragon]

I read pitman and Ryan's book called Noah's Flood, although I think Ryan was the principal author. He gives quite a bit of space to the fact that the ocean levels at one time were some 550 feet lower worldwide. He doesn't say so directly, but it must have been due to the ice age. The med and black seas were dry at that time. The depth of the strait is barely 500 feet deep.

BTW, Ryan called for a conference in Sardinia to discuss the drying up of the Med this past summer.

Anyway it seems there was a rock barrier at the east end of the Bosporus which broke when the Med reflooded, presumably as the sea level rose and flooded the formerly fresh water lake. They learned that this was so because there were fresh water mussel shells from cores in the deepest part of the black sea The shells were c14 dated by woods hole lab using an ionization process.

Personally, I don't think the title Noah's Flood is accurate because the lowering of the sea level happened as a result of the ice age in the latter part of the flood. The ice age happened when the northern hemisphere got packed with ice so much it depressed a lot of Canada and northern Europe by 200 meters.
What you use hear are some real events in Geologic history, but they are impossible to fit into a ~6000 year history of creation with a world flood scenario. Huge ice sheets and glaciers cannot come and go in that short a period of time. How can all these events fit into a literal interpretation of Genesis.

[cuja1]

I think, as far as getting all the animals on the ark is concerned, maybe Noah was only required to get the ones he knew about. I think it's possible that God gave Noah the task of retrieving all the animals to the best of his knowledge and then maybe God took care of the rest.

Like here in Illinois for instance. If I were Noah and I didn't have the privaledge of knowing that other parts of the world had different animals, I would collect only animals that existed in the areas that I was aware of. Maybe he didn't know polar bears existed in the arctic. Or maybe he did get all 1000 species of chikadees (?) in the world, who knows.

Maybe the story is soo unbelievable that God wants us to step back and say, either something else is going on here or it's a miracle. There are alot of things that are hard to believe in the Bible, but that doesn't mean God couldn't have made them happen.

[Lily]

For me this is very easy...God's Words says there was a flood...I believe what His Word says is true.

[Sacrificial Ram]

:help: I think he lost me on this one.....It DID happen, and that's that......right? :hrm:
No,

What was once dry land is now underwater. It might have been quick, or it might have taken generations. There is not enough evidence right now
to say it was a catastrophic event , rather than a slower one. He is speculating that is was catastrophic, and that this might be the origin
of the flood myth.

He currently lacks evidence for his hypothesis. He is playing the 'Noah' card for publicity, and I bet to get funding.

[Sacrificial Ram]

That is quite a listing of alternate cultures that also give testimony to a flood account. Indeed, some of them carry more than a few details that substantiate the Biblical account of a great flood.

- The fact of a flood
- A warning by God(s)
- Deliverance through the construction of a vessel
- All mankind destroyed
- Birds being sent out to determine the appearance of land
- The survival of the hero who then sacrifices to God(s)

The similarity of these various accounts suggests a common origin. Those who hold to the authority of the Bible suggest that this common origin was rooted in an actual historical event. The far-reaching locations at which this account is found would seem to point to universal ramifications.
We can find the remains, and date the existance of many massive floods.
Civilzations tend to be near rivers, and other sources of water and transportation. There have been many flood incidences. The date of the
individiual flood incidences can be dated. So far, there is no evidence of a
single world wide flood, just many large floods accross the world at various different times.

It is not enough for there to be stories of floods, but for your speculation to be accurate, it would have to be tied to a single incident. Investigation
has proven otherwise.

[Sacrificial Ram]

A mere story of a god and/or flood would be commonplace.
A story of the Son of God becoming flesh to die upon a cross as a sacrifice for sins and to subsequently rise from the dead might be a bit more specific and indicative of something more than a mere universal myth.

Likewise, there are both general flood stories as well as a number that contain some very specific similarities, even though they are from different localities.
I suggest you read 'The World's Sixteen Cruxified Saviors' by Graves.

[One Bad Pig]

I suggest you read 'The World's Sixteen Cruxified Saviors' by Graves.
Why? It's not even good fiction!

[shunyadragon]

For me this is very easy...God's Words says there was a flood...I believe what His Word says is true.
God's word says pi is 3, therefore it is 3.

[shunyadragon]

Why? It's not even good fiction!
The Bible is better fiction.

[kofh2u]

What you use hear are some real events in Geologic history, but they are impossible to fit into a ~6000 year history of creation with a world flood scenario. Huge ice sheets and glaciers cannot come and go in that short a period of time. How can all these events fit into a literal interpretation of Genesis.


DO NOT READ THIS UNLESS YOU ARE OPEN MINDED!

Gen6:1-9

Not exactly.

The "flood" has largely been discounted as a real event that was concerned with real water. Both the word "water" and "flood" have been usedsymbolically for ages, and in particular in the Hebrew scriptures, to mean "peoples and nations" and huge "migrations" or amassing of large crowds such as armies.

The best interpretation of Noah's Flood to date can be found in the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.

There, the story is assumed to be metaphorical. The "flood" is a first hand report of the sudden rise in the Modern Homo Sapien population about 40,000 years ago.

This hypothesis is confirmed by science, and dovetails well with St Peter's statement that "a day is a 1000 years."

The "40 days and nights" where years of "rain" which translates metaphorically into an increasing population of "waters of peoples."
Modern Homo sapien is replacing Neanderthal Man and any earlier forms of Homo Erectus. The "world" of men, as conceived in the mind of the former dominant species, is disappearing. It is being replace by a new dominant species on earth, in fact, the ONLY form of conscious life able to construct a mental "heaven" of the world to come.

In this new heaven and earth, the former things are no longer remembered the way Neanderthal understood them. For 50,000 years, in the absence of Modern Homo sapien who had not yet evolved, these men, Neanderthls, were/had been the sons of God.

So, for 40 "nights and days," meaning 40,000 years, Modern Homo Sapiens, the "water," the peoples and nations, exploded,... population wise, as if it were a sudden flood or tidal wave. They apparently out competed Neanderthal Man, the dominate Hominoid before this, driving him away, and probably exterminating him in the most noble fashion and behavior common to Modern Homos.

The "ark" which is symbolic of a closed cube shaped box, refers to the skull of Modern Homo Sapiens. Inside was the "three floors" of the mind: the Conscious Mind, the Subconscious Mind, and the Unconscious Mind.

The rainbow of seven colors, which is mentioned, referred to the seven modes of thinking available to us, the seven spirits of Revelation 1:16, the seven psychological Freudian-Jungian Archetypal apparati:
"And in his hand he held the seven "stars" (of our thinking process) Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Superego, Harmony.

That Neanderrthal was without language, his vocal cords anatomically in the wrong place, he had never created spoken names for the animals and wild life. In his absence, and with the power to speak language, the metaphor
tells us that Noah gave names to the animals... for the first time ever, spoken names were heard on the planet!

Anyway, the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation incorporates the whole metphor, nice and neat, right in the story. Brackets are used to fill in the ideas, and the whole interpretation is literally just a suggestion for the reader.
The concise and direct demonstration, that in metaphor, the story confirms both science and an earlier knowledge of paleonthology than our own.
It salutes the Truth of the Holy Scriptures.
It praises the one feature of man, his mind, that makes him different and superior to lower animal forms.
It supports the general hypothetical assumption that the Word is about the "spirit world" of our thinking.
It lays a foundation for continued application of that principle, that scripture is about the preconceptive thoughts in men's mind that is the precursor of their behavior.

This is so powerful in that it makes sense, it avoids all the denigrating secular remarks and disparagements. AND... it even challenges them to be reasonable.

To recognize that this is an ancient report, an eye witness report of an important biological event.

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen. 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit (of Natural Law) shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh (and must adapt to my Reality): yet, (Neanderthal), his days shall be an hundred and twenty (thousand) years.

Gen. 6:4 There were giants (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian and Methusaelian) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) came in unto the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids preceeding the advent of Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.

Gen. 6:5 And GOD, (the Reality of Universal Power) saw that the wickedness of man (including Neanderthal) was great in the earth, and that every imagination of (his abstraction of Reality) the thoughts of his heart (or his psyche) was only evil (and unrealistic) continually (as regards the process of adaption).

Gen. 6:6 And (in) it, (the evolutionary process), repented the LORD that he had made man (all hominoids, in general,) on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (that cataclysmic changes were to come).

Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (Almighty Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (to mentally, in analogy, abstract consciously a model and schmata of Universe) destroy them from the face of the earth (by means of extinction); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his idea of) the beast, and (his idea of) the creeping thing, and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

[One Bad Pig]

The Bible is better fiction.
:ahem: One wonders why a Bah'ai would trash the document used by the Bah'a'ullah to legitimize his claims.

[shunyadragon]

:ahem: One wonders why a Bah'ai would trash the document used by the Bah'a'ullah to legitimize his claims.
I should have put some sarcasm flags up. The statement was in response to yours.

[One Bad Pig]

I should have put some sarcasm flags up. The statement was in response to yours.
Sorry, I've seen this book referred to before, and was singularly unimpressed.

Here's (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html) why:
An example of where this would apply to our study can be seen in the grossly out-dated (but, AMAZINGLY, still widely cited by skeptics) work of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves. The chapter in which he identifies these 'saviors' (some of whom will be discussed below) is dependent TOTALLY on a secondary source (without citations often) that itself is based almost TOTALLY on interpretations of iconographic data. And these interpretations were made 150 years ago, without the benefit of the virtual explosion of knowledge in comparative religion, cognitive archaeology, and ANE thought, and without the scholarly 'control' of even slightly later works (such as Budge, GOE). Graves identifies 16 of these 'crucified Saviors' whereas modern scholarship, working on a much broader base of literary and archeological data, disagrees.

It's a poorly researched book that was written in archeology's infancy. Scholarship has corrected itself and moved on.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I've seen this book referred to before, and was singularly unimpressed.

Here's (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html) why:
An example of where this would apply to our study can be seen in the grossly out-dated (but, AMAZINGLY, still widely cited by skeptics) work of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves. The chapter in which he identifies these 'saviors' (some of whom will be discussed below) is dependent TOTALLY on a secondary source (without citations often) that itself is based almost TOTALLY on interpretations of iconographic data. And these interpretations were made 150 years ago, without the benefit of the virtual explosion of knowledge in comparative religion, cognitive archaeology, and ANE thought, and without the scholarly 'control' of even slightly later works (such as Budge, GOE). Graves identifies 16 of these 'crucified Saviors' whereas modern scholarship, working on a much broader base of literary and archeological data, disagrees.

It's a poorly researched book that was written in archeology's infancy. Scholarship has corrected itself and moved on.
You still sort of missed my sarcasm. The Bible writen long ago is a poorly documented and contradictory book if people try to interpret it as literal innerent fact and take everything in it in absolute black and white truth.

The book you referred to must also be taken into the context of the time it was writen. Like the Bible it is not totally false nor totally true. It is not fiction and much, not all, of the conclusions of the book are considered accurate today.

[One Bad Pig]

You still sort of missed my sarcasm. The Bible writen long ago is a poorly documented and contradictory book if people try to interpret it as literal innerent fact and take everything in it in absolute black and white truth.

The book you referred to must also be taken into the context of the time it was writen. Like the Bible it is not totally false nor totally true. It is not fiction and much, not all, of the conclusions of the book are considered accurate today.
You would do well to consider the contexts of the time the Bible was written, as you advocate considering the context of Graves' book. If you read the Bible (high-context) as a woodenly literal low-context document, like the skeptics do, you're going to find "errors". If you consider the context, as JP Holding (http://www.tektonics.org/) and Glenn Miller (http://www.cttx.org/) have ably done, the "errors" vanish. If you read Graves' book in its proper context (archeology was still in its infancy, reliance on secondary sources), you'd know to take his words with a veritable salt lick.

[Sacrificial Ram]

You would do well to consider the contexts of the time the Bible was written, as you advocate considering the context of Graves' book. If you read the Bible (high-context) as a woodenly literal low-context document, like the skeptics do, you're going to find "errors". If you consider the context, as JP Holding (http://www.tektonics.org/) and Glenn Miller (http://www.cttx.org/) have ably done, the "errors" vanish. If you read Graves' book in its proper context (archeology was still in its infancy, reliance on secondary sources), you'd know to take his words with a veritable salt lick.
Funny, I look at JP.s work, and Glenn Millers work, and I see a strong bias against the similarities, and arguements that rather than show the differences actually highlight how similar things really are in their efforts to distance themselves from other myths.

[shunyadragon]

You would do well to consider the contexts of the time the Bible was written, as you advocate considering the context of Graves' book. If you read the Bible (high-context) as a woodenly literal low-context document, like the skeptics do, you're going to find "errors". If you consider the context, as JP Holding (http://www.tektonics.org/) and Glenn Miller (http://www.cttx.org/) have ably done, the "errors" vanish. If you read Graves' book in its proper context (archeology was still in its infancy, reliance on secondary sources), you'd know to take his words with a veritable salt lick.I have read Holding and Miller and find their arguments highly biased and unconvincing. I see the apologists reading the Bible as woodenly literal.

I have debated Holding on some issues and find his understanding or willingness to understand Hebrew and Greek as dismal. Holding's view of science is even more rediculous as he has lost debate after debate on Tweb.

If you take a less biased view toward how the Bible 'must be interpreted' you would realize that Holding and Miller lack academic credibility and . . . you'd know to take (their) words with a veritable salt lick.

Contradictions do not vanish on the claims of 'I say so'.

[jpholding]

It's fun to watch the babies cry, isn't it? :lmbo:

[sylas]

The best interpretation of Noah's Flood to date can be found in the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.

Who wrote it?

Cheers -- Sylas

[Maimonides]

Floods in general are fairly common too, of course...

How many cultures across the world worshipped the sun and moon as Gods at one point? Does that mean they once were Gods?
You're missing the point... and the answer is Yes.

The sun and the moon were worshipped as gods, yes: why wouldn't they be? The point is that all aboriginal cultures sought explanations for that beyond their understanding. Furthermore, they cultivated a sense or awareness of the numinous in their everyday lives. Myths are valuable to teach us esoteric truth: virtues of patience, cooperation, obedience, reverence, etc. That is the real "point" of the Noah myth, although it is also an entertaining story (to a desert nomad, especially), and helps to explain how the world got to be the way it is (or was).

And of course, floods are common. Especially 7,000-17,000 years ago, during deglaciation. That could explain the pervasiveness of flood myths.

[shunyadragon]

You're missing the point... and the answer is Yes.

The sun and the moon were worshipped as gods, yes: why wouldn't they be? The point is that all aboriginal cultures sought explanations for that beyond their understanding. Furthermore, they cultivated a sense or awareness of the numinous in their everyday lives. Myths are valuable to teach us esoteric truth: virtues of patience, cooperation, obedience, reverence, etc. That is the real "point" of the Noah myth, although it is also an entertaining story (to a desert nomad, especially), and helps to explain how the world got to be the way it is (or was).

And of course, floods are common. Especially 7,000-17,000 years ago, during deglaciation. That could explain the pervasiveness of flood myths.
I partially agree on the prevalence of flood during post glaciation being respondsible for the World Flood myth. But most of the myths developed around large fertile river valleys where catastrophic floods were common throughout history.

[Maimonides]

No (I think). Both the article's author and I fell that the Great Flood never happened but that myth can be a great source of truth. The error is in devoting so much time and energy into proving the histocricy of an event that sometimes the spiritual benefit is lost or lessened.
And the chains of the Middle Ages snap...

[Maimonides]

I partially agree on the prevalence of flood during post glaciation being respondsible for the World Flood myth. But most of the myths developed around large fertile river valleys where catastrophic floods were common throughout history.
Excellent point. Here in California we have the Sacramento River valley, and of course many indigenous Central Californian flood traditions.

[Lion]

So It’s a myth, is it? The title of his thread is believers in the lost ark, therefore people like Geochron should not post here. He is an apostle of long ages and unless he has had a change of heart he has no busness muddying the waters. The Bible story of the flood is not a myth, it is real.

The disaster of the flood came because the creator was sorry he had made the earth. The earth was filled with violence. Nearly every newscast on TV has a subtitle of the war on terror. If it isnt some Palestinian blowing himself up and killing Israelis it is something about Usama Bin Laden or worry about terrorist threat on the Washington state ferry system. The threat may be real.

The Bible is clear that men are getting worse and worse and thinking up more destructive ways of killing more people.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Pet 3:3-7

Notice this, They are willingly ignorant. They don’t WANT to know. Thy call it a fable, a story with no basis in fact. Sorry, the Bible has been proven true, and it is fire next time.

[shunyadragon]

That is quite a listing of alternate cultures that also give testimony to a flood account. Indeed, some of them carry more than a few details that substantiate the Biblical account of a great flood.

- The fact of a flood
- A warning by God(s)
- Deliverance through the construction of a vessel
- All mankind destroyed
- Birds being sent out to determine the appearance of land
- The survival of the hero who then sacrifices to God(s)

The similarity of these various accounts suggests a common origin. Those who hold to the authority of the Bible suggest that this common origin was rooted in an actual historical event. The far-reaching locations at which this account is found would seem to point to universal ramifications.The universal ramifications do not point to one event. There is abundant evidence of local and regional catastrophic flood events to explain these local folk stories, but there is none for a world flood. The overwhelming evidence for the continuity of these same cultures and peoples over longer periods of time in the regions where they lived would not allow for a world flood time frame. This is only one example of evidence that says absolutely NO to the possibility of a world flood.

If anything this part of the evidence that the beliefs and evolution of religion in the Judeo-Christian heritage is not unique, but universal.

[shunyadragon]

So It’s a myth, is it? The title of his thread is believers in the lost ark, therefore people like Geochron should not post here. He is an apostle of long ages and unless he has had a change of heart he has no busness muddying the waters. The Bible story of the flood is not a myth, it is real.

Notice this, They are willingly ignorant. They don’t WANT to know. Thy call it a fable, a story with no basis in fact. Sorry, the Bible has been proven true, and it is fire next time.It is interesting that apologists say the Bible account of the flood is proven true, but have failed to present evidence supporting this claim.

All of the debates in Natural Science 101 and Archeology 201 have faded away with the apologists failing to respond and provide documentation on key issues of geologic evidence, like the sediments involving the coal fields of the world.

[Lion]

The evidence of the flood is all around us. The massive deposits of coal on a world wide scale. We run our automobiles on petroleum, which, contrary to some opinions, originated from vegetable sources. Even if it did originate from animal sources, which it didn’t, there was a vast amount of it.

People have been searching for reasons why, when the oil men drilled at Prudhoe Bay, they found frozen, not petrified, palm logs hundreds of feet below the surface. I took a picture in Alaska of a broken mammoth tusk about 12 inches across. I understand they are quite common in Alaska. Nikolai Vereshchangin former chairman of the Russian committee for the study of mammoths said that there is a 300 mile section of the arctic shore where an estimated 5 million mammoth skeletons littering the coastline. There are whole islands in the arctic ocean made of nothng but frozen bones, frozen, not petrified. These are bones of temperate zone animals. How did they get there?

There was a placer gold mining operation in the Tanana river area southeast of Farbanks in the 1940 era. The problem was the gold was in a gravel bed under a ten foot layer of permafrost, permanently frozen earth. Bulldozers were used to remove the frozen earth. The surprising find was, buried in the frozen earth, which, by the way, had no rock in it, just wind blown dirt, was thousands of frozen animal carcasses. These were not whole animals, bit mostly part of a body here and another part there. There were mostly Bison with a scattering of lions and other creatures.

The mining operation piled up mountains of dirt and animal parts, and the parts thawed and rotted and the stink could be smelled for miles. How did they get there?

Gen. 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened..

There are what appears to be remnants of these fountains in a 44,000 mile long midocean ridge. It is volcanic, and at some places are Black Smokers, fountains that put out 700 degree water. Strange blind shrimplike creatures have been found there, as described in a National Geographic article.

[sylas]

I took a picture in Alaska of a broken mammoth tusk about 12 inches across. I understand they are quite common in Alaska. Nikolai Vereshchangin former chairman of the Russian committee for the study of mammoths said that there is a 300 mile section of the arctic shore where an estimated 5 million mammoth skeletons littering the coastline. There are whole islands in the arctic ocean made of nothng but frozen bones, frozen, not petrified. These are bones of temperate zone animals. How did they get there?

However they got there, it certainly was not by a flood. Think about it; they are close to the surface. What about the miles of sediment supposedly left by the flood? Comically, a good source for refuting this absurd notion is Answers in Genesis. I am reproducing here some material I wrote for talkorigins feedback some years ago. You can find it at October 2003 (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/oct03.html#r48) feedback.

I am going to respond to your comments on mammoths by quoting a rather surprising source of information.

Number of frozen mammoths: "However, most mammoths have left no trace: there are fewer than 50 known woolly mammoth carcasses, only about a half-dozen of which were complete. But an estimated 50,000 tusks have been found."
On being encased in ice: "They are always found in frozen ‘muck’ in Alaska and ‘yedomas’ in Siberia, near the surface throughout the mid and high latitudes, mostly in river valleys, and occasionally in ice wedges. Despite the myths, most mammoths are not encased in ice."
On being buried in a flood: "Most frozen mammoths show signs of scavenging and decay. Many years in the ice caused the flesh to dry out (just like a stew left in a freezer for years), resulting in a mummy." Note that my quoted source would have been a bit more accurate to say in permafrost than in ice. As shown in the previous point, my source recognizes that the mammoths are not encased in ice. Ice is not found under water; because water freezes from the top down. Ice which is under water will rapidly melt. These mammoths were freeze-dried; which requires very dry conditions.
On whether mammoths were killed in the flood: "The location of the mammoths makes it unlikely they were formed during Noah’s Flood."


Now for the big surprise. The source I am quoting is the major young earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis. You can read their full article at Mammoth — Riddle of the Ice Age (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4242cen_m2000.asp), by Jonathan Sarfati. Basically, their model (which is also in conflict with the evidence, by the way) is that mammoths were frozen about 4000 years ago, and about 700 years after the flood.

Cheers -- Sylas

[rogero]

However they got there, it certainly was not by a flood. Think about it; they are close to the surface. What about the miles of sediment supposedly left by the flood? Comically, a good source for refuting this absurd notion is Answers in Genesis. ...

Cheers -- Sylas


Excellent post, Sylas! The point on permafrost vis-a-vis subaqueous burial is duly noted.

R

[Lion]

While I have, in company with my friends who don’t believe in a worldwide flood, some theories. Only theories. But I believe the story in Genesis 6-9 implicitly. We don’t know the exact cause of the flood. Whatever the cause, men who have studied the oceans, and these are not Bible believers, seem to think something caused the earth to be tilted to the present 23.5 degrees, which is the cause of our seasons.

The earth apparently had no extremes of heat and cold before the flood. Genesis 8 indicates this was true in an indirect way..

Gen. 8:21 The LORD. . . . . said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Gen. 8:22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”

This is verified by several facts. The existence of tropical and subtropical animals and vegetation remains in the arctic ask the question, how did so many of them get there? There are an estimated five mllion skeletons of wooly mammoths scattered along a 300 mile stretch of the Siberian arctic sea. These are not the common fossils that have turned to stone, they are bone, natural bone. The natives have collected many of the tusks and sold them. The oil drillers at Prudhoe Bay encountered frozen palm tree trunks in the permafrost several thousand feet below the surface. They were frozen, not petrified.

In the Yukon Territory there is a gold mining operation reported in Discover magazine. The interesting feature of the story is a mammoth skeleton and thousands of bison bones that still have fresh appearing marrow in them. Some scientist wants to clone a bison. It is doubtful he can do it. We shall see.

The question I want to ask is, how did these temperate and tropical zone animals and plants get into arctic and subarctic locations if the flood was just a local phenomenon? I am waiting for an answer.

[geochron]

While I have, in company with my friends who don’t believe in a worldwide flood, some theories. Only theories. But I believe the story in Genesis 6-9 implicitly. We don’t know the exact cause of the flood. Whatever the cause, men who have studied the oceans, and these are not Bible believers, seem to think something caused the earth to be tilted to the present 23.5 degrees, which is the cause of our seasons.

The earth apparently had no extremes of heat and cold before the flood. Genesis 8 indicates this was true in an indirect way..

Gen. 8:21 The LORD. . . . . said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Gen. 8:22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”

This is verified by several facts. The existence of tropical and subtropical animals and vegetation remains in the arctic ask the question, how did so many of them get there? There are an estimated five mllion skeletons of wooly mammoths scattered along a 300 mile stretch of the Siberian arctic sea. These are not the common fossils that have turned to stone, they are bone, natural bone. The natives have collected many of the tusks and sold them. The oil drillers at Prudhoe Bay encountered frozen palm tree trunks in the permafrost several thousand feet below the surface. They were frozen, not petrified.

In the Yukon Territory there is a gold mining operation reported in Discover magazine. The interesting feature of the story is a mammoth skeleton and thousands of bison bones that still have fresh appearing marrow in them. Some scientist wants to clone a bison. It is doubtful he can do it. We shall see.

The question I want to ask is, how did these temperate and tropical zone animals and plants get into arctic and subarctic locations if the flood was just a local phenomenon? I am waiting for an answer.

What makes you think mammoths, for instance, were temperate or tropical zone animals?

e.g. http://www.prin.edu/mammoth/mammothfacts.htm

If they were washed up and deposited by the flood, why are different geneara found in different locales alongside specific selections of other animals? Easy to understand if the died where they lived, hard to understand if they were washed up by the flood or a giant tsunami (as I think you suggested elsewhere).

http://www.cq.rm.cnr.it/elephants2001/pdf/707_709.pdf

(I can google too!!!!)

Edited to add:

I think I identified a source...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths3.html

I took a quick look at the Science paper referenced (#29). It's hard to see much support for tropical mammoths in it.

[Lion]

Geochron, I thought I would get something out of you! You lurk around the corners to see how much trouble you can stir up, don’t you? But you deserve a solid answer.

You ask:
What makes you think mammoths, for instance, were temperate or tropical zone animals?

e.g. http://www.prin.edu/mammoth/mammothfacts.htm
----------------------------
I looked up the reference above. It’s a bunch of evolutionary rot, which I can’t believe, because of the physical characteristics of the animal. The reference indicatesthat the mammoth lived in the arctic.

I agree that the remains we find are in the arctic or subarctic. But the map in the article shows an icy region. Now I have some questions for you.

The map shows that they lived above the arctic circle. Now there are animals that live up there in the summer The grass grows lush and they put on lots of fat because they don’t have much browse in the winter. They don’t drink in the winter, because the water is all frozen up.

Now the questions. The mammoth needs a lot of water. He has to draw up his water through his nose. Where can he get 30 gallons minimum in that frozen land? What about the thermal effect on his trunk? Would it get stiff from the near freezing water? What would he eat during the 90 days of darkness and eight months when nothing grows?

I watched the discovery channel when they showed raising the mammoth. The thing that caught my attention was the fact that the animal was standing in a field of buttercups. Evidently he had been overtaken by a sudden freeze and snowstorm. How can you explain that? Animals do not remain standing after they die unless they are held up by something, in this case, ice.

Not only do we have frozen mammoths, we have an estimated five milion skeletons of mammoths scattered for 300 miles of the arctic shore, but we have whole islands composed largely of animal bones in the shallow arctic ocean. These are bones, not fossilized.

You asked.
If they were washed up and deposited by the flood, why are different geneara found in different locales alongside specific selections of other animals? Easy to understand if the died where they lived, hard to understand if they were washed up by the flood or a giant tsunami (as I think you suggested elsewhere).
-------------------
I mentioned the massive numbers of frozen animals in Alaska and the Yukon territory that appeared to be torn limb from limb and frozen. They were evidently victims of some gigantic cataclysm, scattered for miles and then buried by a terrible wind storm that covered them nine feet deep in permafrost. To me it spells flood.

Your comment
http://www.creationscience.com/onli...nMammoths3.html

I took a quick look at the Science paper referenced (#29). It's hard to see much support for tropical mammoths in it.
--------------
If I said tropical animals I didn’t mean to imply the mammoths were tropical They are similar to the tropical elephants, and have much the same charcteristics, BTW, I have the book from which the above reference was taken.

[geochron]

Geochron, I thought I would get something out of you! You lurk around the corners to see how much trouble you can stir up, don’t you? But you deserve a solid answer.



While you're in the mood there are plenty of questions in various chronology threads.


You ask:
What makes you think mammoths, for instance, were temperate or tropical zone animals?

e.g. http://www.prin.edu/mammoth/mammothfacts.htm
----------------------------
I looked up the reference above. It’s a bunch of evolutionary rot, which I can’t believe, because of the physical characteristics of the animal. The reference indicatesthat the mammoth lived in the arctic.



"Rot" is one of your favourite words. Unfortunately you've posted so much rot here already (potassium-radon dating, potassium beta decaying to argon, semi-molten magma, the mantle is 300 km thick...) that it's hard to give much weight to your judgement.

Here's more on how mammoths lived where they did.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html#burns



Now the questions. The mammoth needs a lot of water. He has to draw up his water through his nose. Where can he get 30 gallons minimum in that frozen land? What about the thermal effect on his trunk? Would it get stiff from the near freezing water? What would he eat during the 90 days of darkness and eight months when nothing grows?



see above link.



I watched the discovery channel when they showed raising the mammoth. The thing that caught my attention was the fact that the animal was standing in a field of buttercups. Evidently he had been overtaken by a sudden freeze and snowstorm. How can you explain that? Animals do not remain standing after they die unless they are held up by something, in this case, ice.



I guess I'd have to see the programme. For the moment I'll take professional researchers over what you deduce from a Discovery programme.



Not only do we have frozen mammoths, we have an estimated five milion skeletons of mammoths scattered for 300 miles of the arctic shore, but we have whole islands composed largely of animal bones in the shallow arctic ocean. These are bones, not fossilized.



References?



You asked.
If they were washed up and deposited by the flood, why are different geneara found in different locales alongside specific selections of other animals? Easy to understand if the died where they lived, hard to understand if they were washed up by the flood or a giant tsunami (as I think you suggested elsewhere).
-------------------
I mentioned the massive numbers of frozen animals in Alaska and the Yukon territory that appeared to be torn limb from limb and frozen. They were evidently victims of some gigantic cataclysm, scattered for miles and then buried by a terrible wind storm that covered them nine feet deep in permafrost. To me it spells flood.



Not an answer to my question, is it? Why are animal remains sorted by ecosystem if they were washed up by a massive flood.



Your comment
http://www.creationscience.com/onli...nMammoths3.html

I took a quick look at the Science paper referenced (#29). It's hard to see much support for tropical mammoths in it.
--------------
If I said tropical animals I didn’t mean to imply the mammoths were tropical They are similar to the tropical elephants, and have much the same charcteristics, BTW, I have the book from which the above reference was taken.



Never mind. We all make the odd poor purchase :wink:

[Lion]

Geochron, I have been in the arctic I know something of the area. I have been there in summer and winter, so I know something of the climate. The temp at Anchorage hanges at about +10 in the winter and I have seen it get up to 80 in the summer.

My first trip there was on April 4, 1951. The streets were full of snow, with deep ruts. I asked why the snow, since there wasn't much out of town. They told me there had been a week of celebration of the Alaska Fur rendesvousTer had been no snow for the celebration so they trucked in a lot of snow. It was a mess. The Iditarod race from Anchorage to Nome had started the week before. But the snow was there until the last of April. Anchorage is at the head of Cook inlet and it has high tides, 35 foot ones.

Fresh water floats on salt water and giant ice pans were floating all over. I walked down to the dock and found 7 or 8 pilings bound together and a 20 foot thick chunk of ice frozen to it. They get ice fogs where every twig or wire gets coated several inches thick. So I know something of Alaska weather.

[Lion]

Geochron, I don't know how to say this without seeming to be trite and condescending, but didn’t you ever hear of herds of buffalo? Or perhaps a pride of lions? There were giant herds of bison in the great plains, millions of them, and millions of mammoths. It’s not surprising that bison were plentiful in what is now he arctic before the flood. Of course I realize you don’t think there was a flood, and deny that the earth was tipped.

What I said in my last two or three posts was that scientists have taken the plate tectonics idea and tried to put together what must have been the original continent. There are some misfits and places that are missing, but mostly they have done a fair job. But what caused the breakup in the first place?

You asked about the mantle under the continents I don’t know if I answered that to your satisfaction or not. In case I didn’t here is a website.

http://webspinners.com/dlblanc/tectonic/floating.html

This explains it pretty well. We know that oil that comes out of deep oil wells is hot. Even the oil from Prudhoe bay is still hot when it reaches Valdez. And the deeper one goes, the hotter it gets.

The mantle is plastic. Not as we think of it, but still plastic enough to flow because of the tremendous weight of the crust.

Anyway, it is evident that the Americas slid west, and the Africa Europe Asia land mass slid east. That accounts for the deep ocean to the west of the Americas and Japan. Also it seems to explain the ring of volcanoes that surround the Pacific. How fast they slid is an open question, but I think they must have slid several miles a day. They also pushed up the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau.

What caused this sliding? Evidently the earth’s axis was more nearly vertical before the flood, and something jarred it to a new orientation. That would account for the fact that massive herds of mammoths, bison, and other animals were present when the flood struck.

Gen. 6:11 ¶ Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen. 6:12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
Gen. 6:13 ¶ Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.

Now I know you think this is just a fable, some folklore, but i want to ask you a serious question. Has there ever been a time when there was more violence or threatened violence in the earth than now?

All the nations seem to be ready to jump at any pretext. India and Pakistan are at each other’s throats over Kashmir. Iran is going nuclear, or so it seems. North Korea says they have the Nbomb. The US support for Israel has made all the Islamic nations mad at us. The UN is a toothless tiger, dominated by the Arab League. France and Germany seem to have taken bribes from Saddam, that’s why France wouldn’t back the US in the security council.

I was in San Francisco working at the airport when the UN was organized. Truman had high hopes for the UN. I could have told him then it wouldn’t work, but you had to give him an E for an excellent try.

Seriously, it seems the world is going to hell and all our efforts to stop it seem doomed to fail. What do you think will happen?

As for my term rot, that's what I think of evolution. The geological ages are a contrivance to explain the things in the earth of those who don't accept the Bible story of the flood. They don't, for instance, explain polystrate phenomena, such a tree that extends through many layers of strata.

[wattsr1]

Gidday Lion,

On October 15, 2004, in reply to geochron you ended your post with:-

Lion:- The geological ages are a contrivance to explain the things in the earth of those who don't accept the Bible story of the flood.

In what sense are geological ages a “contrivance”? What evidence do you have that these geological dates have no bearing with respect to any reality but were merely invented by some humans so that they did not have to believe in the prevaling interpretation (and your interpretation) of some verses of the Bible – in this case the Flood?

Regards, Roland

[shunyadragon]

Geochron, I thought I would get something out of you! You lurk around the corners to see how much trouble you can stir up, don’t you? But you deserve a solid answer.

You ask:
What makes you think mammoths, for instance, were temperate or tropical zone animals?

e.g. http://www.prin.edu/mammoth/mammothfacts.htm
----------------------------


You asked.
If they were washed up and deposited by the flood, why are different geneara found in different locales alongside specific selections of other animals? Easy to understand if the died where they lived, hard to understand if they were washed up by the flood or a giant tsunami (as I think you suggested elsewhere).
-------------------
I mentioned the massive numbers of frozen animals in Alaska and the Yukon territory that appeared to be torn limb from limb and frozen. They were evidently victims of some gigantic cataclysm, scattered for miles and then buried by a terrible wind storm that covered them nine feet deep in permafrost. To me it spells flood.

Your comment
http://www.creationscience.com/onli...nMammoths3.html

I took a quick look at the Science paper referenced (#29). It's hard to see much support for tropical mammoths in it.
--------------
If I said tropical animals I didn’t mean to imply the mammoths were tropical They are similar to the tropical elephants, and have much the same charcteristics, BTW, I have the book from which the above reference was taken.
It is a myth that the mammoths wandered over icy barrens of continental glaciers. The mammoths had distinctly different characteristics than their tropical cousins that adapted them to the lush verdent heaven of the subarctic/mesic world of the continental glacier boundary that no longer exists. You must remember that the original continental glaciers extended far south up against the warmer temporate regions of the earth. The sudden demise of this lush verdent environment with many lakes and rivers at the end of the last Ice Age caused the mammoth to become extinct. They retreated into a subarctic barren tundra that was hostile to their survival. We have abundent evidence from the stomach of the last reminants of the mamoth herds what they ate and why they perished. They retreated from a region drying out in the wake of a vanishing glacier into a cold barren tundra. As their food source disappeared so did the mammoths. The last mammoths to perish were pigmy mammoths that became smaller and less demanding but they died out a few thousand years ago when their environment became barren arctic tundra on the north edge of asia.

The animals that replaced the large lumbering giants were smaller fast migratory animals like the elk and smaller animals that could hibernate and adapt to the tundra.

[HerodionRomulus]

I've also read the book on the Black Sea flooding and found it to be solid, though further research is, as always needed.

As to universal floods, let me just add that it is not surprising to see flood stories from the peoples of Washington, Oregon and British Columbia.
This area suffers a catastrophic tsunami(s) approximately every 800 years.

btw, the last one was approximately 1200 ce. Move to Spokane!! :eek:

[Lion]

There are several questions that have been asked since my last post, and some statements the deserve a reply.

The problem is this: The ones who don’t believe the Bible story of the flood have invented lots of guesses as to what really happened. They, for instance, consider each layer of limestone or other rock as a separate epoch, separated by thousands or millions of years. I, and others like me, look at the strata and consider that it was deposited by giant waves where tides were circling the earth twice every 24 hours. They simply cannot imagine a cataclysm of that magnitude.

Take the St. Helens eruption as an example. That eruption flattened millions of trees in a few seconds. It sloshed a giant wave in Spirit Lake 600 feet up the opposite end of the lake to bedrock. The eruptions created many strata in seconds that evolutionary geologists elsewhere claim were deposited over thousands or millions of years.

We have pictures of a fossil tree that penetrates many layers of limestone. Canyons at St. Helens were washed through solid rock in hours, not years.

The earth evidently had a single continent at one time, scientists have been able to assemble the existing continents into more or less a single land mass. But something broke it up. The oceanographers at Texas A&M studied seamounts and decided the earth had been tipped, that was why the land mass broke up. Apparently the earth assumed a new orientation 23.5 degrees off the plane of the orbit, which creates the seasons. The single continent evidently had an evenly mild clmate, no freezing cold.

The mystery of frozen mammoths is easily explained. Most people who live where cold weather exists have seen this phenomenon and probably never gave it a thought. In the fall cold weather causes steam to rise off lakes and rivers becaus the water is warmer than the air. Now consider this. The preflood ocean was warm. The gulf stream flows north along the eastern US and into the arctic ocean. That is why the arctic port of Murmansk is ice free all winter.

Now consider this. The animals were used to a mild climate and had multiplied to vast numbers. There is one 300 mile stretch of the Siberian coast where an estimated five milion mammoth skeletons litter the shore, 1700 per mile. A few stragglers were evidently grazing inland. The warm sea with the onset of the northern winter and the approaching cold made fog rise off the sea. The cold air also made the fog turn to snow. There was a blizzard never seen before or since. The poor mammoth got covered up standing. The earth was warm, but also but had less than 20% of the heat of water, so snow cooled the earth rapidly. The result was snow packed around anything, most likely piling several feet an hour. The polar winds blow from west to east, so it heaped snow all over North America and Greenland and northern Europe. Ice loads the continents. They sink with the ice load. Sweden has risen the equivalent of 6500 feet of ice.

HerodionRomulus, What do you base the statement of tusnamis every 800 yrs?this continent hasn’t been explored that long.
Ryan’s book was well researched, but was not well named. It had nothing to do with Noah.

[wattsr1]

Gidday Lion,

In a general reply to everyone you wrote:-

Lion:- The ones who don’t believe the Bible story of the flood have invented lots of guesses as to what really happened.

Have you ever heard of the word “projection” in the context of these debates – namely accusing your opponent of doing that which you do?

The remainder of your posting beyond this sentence is just that – your wild speculation!

Whether your story is plausible or implausible, you really have no idea because it is not grounded in any evidence – save for the most trivial i.e the existence of geological strata, the existence of a volcano (Mt St Helens), the existence of a supercontinent at one time (one of several) etc.

You weave all of these together in one hand-waved, fantastic story after having accused your opponents of “invent lots of guesses”.

Do you have any evidence that the geological strata were laid down in tides which cirlced the earth twice in 24 hours? Or is this just a convenience you invented to explain the geological strata? I reckon the the strata were laid down 20 layers a day. No wait, I have just had a glass of wine. Make that 400 layers a day. Tomorrow when I arise from bed I shall declare it to be 1 layer every 30 days. No matter. Because I ignore what they say, I can just call geologists speculators and the inventors of stories when it suits, and instead offer trivial observation coupled with wild guess as a scientific theory.

How can you even consider that the continents were once assembled into one supercontinent at one stage? Why not just another invention? What about the notion that some 6,000 m of ice has gone from Sweden? Why accept that? Just another piece of speculation, surely!

Realy Lion you just pick and choose what you wish and pretend that nothing else exists.

Tch!

Have you ever read many geological text books and journals where strata show alternating layers of land (volcanic, desert, wet, dry) and ocean evironments and in which the strata show a range of attibutes ranging from the undisturded to the disturbed. Furthermore these strata just do not show dates that suit your fantastic imaginings.

If you object that modern dating methods are “rot” and can therefore be ignored then consider your responses in the other thread (Young-Earth Christians: How Old is the Earth?), where these methods were explained. You continually ignored requests for clarifications from others and showed no sense that you had even read or considered what geochron, rach12 and monkey-boy had written.

IOW, your judgement of “rot” is based on ignoring what is argued in the first case then calling it “speculation” when forced to consider it. IOW, you have no basis for rejecting modern dating methods other than by your own (here it is again) speculations.

IOW your arguments are not based on consistent and coherent argument. Rather they are based on fantastic machinations on your behalf, supported by your continual refusal to respond to your opponents other than by ignoring what had been written to you and requested from you.

No wonder you can write that we invent stories. You ignore what is being argued and asked of you and by maintaining such a stance you confuse argument and evidence from others with pure speculation on your behalf.

I too can use continental drift, herds of animals, sudden snow storms, Mt St Helens to “prove” anything I want.

I propose proof for the [i]Epic of Gilgamesh.

Acceptable to you?

If not then why not? (“Angry gods” is not a satisfactory answer given that your god also gets angry.)


Regards, Roland

[shunyadragon]

There are several questions that have been asked since my last post, and some statements the deserve a reply.

The problem is this: The ones who don’t believe the Bible story of the flood have invented lots of guesses as to what really happened. They, for instance, consider each layer of limestone or other rock as a separate epoch, separated by thousands or millions of years. I, and others like me, look at the strata and consider that it was deposited by giant waves where tides were circling the earth twice every 24 hours. They simply cannot imagine a cataclysm of that magnitude.

HerodionRomulus, What do you base the statement of tusnamis every 800 yrs?this continent hasn’t been explored that long.
Ryan’s book was well researched, but was not well named. It had nothing to do with Noah.To imagine a cataclysm of a world flood, you have to imagine, with something equivalent to 'Grimes Fairy Tales' or maybe Stephen Spielberg and Walt Disney animation, how limestone over a mile thick could ever be deposited in a world catastrophic flood.

[Maimonides]

The usual liberal rationalizations being proposed as some sort of superior "wisdom".

There is no way that there would be "truth" in the account of the Flood if it had not actually happened.

All these ideas about who actually wrote the Bible are completely devoid of any evidence to support them.

On the other hand, the discovery of the "signatures" still present in the Genesis stories indicates that they were written by individuals who actually witnessed the events, and were merely edited into a single document by Moses.

If the flood stories in Genesis were preserved by the survivors of the Ark, it is no wonder that all cultures around the world have "myths" of the great watery catastrophe that left only a few human survivors. The stories have in many cases been garbled to be sure, but still recognizable as having a common source.
"Garbled?" As a student of Amerindian myth I find your appellation more than just a little offensive... as far as I'm concerned all the stories are quite sophisticated and genuinely powerful and wonderful.

Address the claims intellectually, please, rather than try to pander them off as "liberal" as though that settled it. The Genesis flood would not have "needed" to have happened; human beings have pretty good imaginations and we can be great storytellers, especially in a day in age when few if any persons knew how to write... after all, the Bible myths do draw on oral tradition.

There is actually quite a corpus of evidence underpinning our beliefs concerning who wrote the Bible... I'd recommend Karen Armstrong's books for starters.

[Maimonides]

DO NOT READ THIS UNLESS YOU ARE OPEN MINDED!

Gen6:1-9

Not exactly.

The "flood" has largely been discounted as a real event that was concerned with real water. Both the word "water" and "flood" have been usedsymbolically for ages, and in particular in the Hebrew scriptures, to mean "peoples and nations" and huge "migrations" or amassing of large crowds such as armies.

The best interpretation of Noah's Flood to date can be found in the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.

There, the story is assumed to be metaphorical. The "flood" is a first hand report of the sudden rise in the Modern Homo Sapien population about 40,000 years ago.

This hypothesis is confirmed by science, and dovetails well with St Peter's statement that "a day is a 1000 years."

The "40 days and nights" where years of "rain" which translates metaphorically into an increasing population of "waters of peoples."
Modern Homo sapien is replacing Neanderthal Man and any earlier forms of Homo Erectus. The "world" of men, as conceived in the mind of the former dominant species, is disappearing. It is being replace by a new dominant species on earth, in fact, the ONLY form of conscious life able to construct a mental "heaven" of the world to come.

In this new heaven and earth, the former things are no longer remembered the way Neanderthal understood them. For 50,000 years, in the absence of Modern Homo sapien who had not yet evolved, these men, Neanderthls, were/had been the sons of God.

So, for 40 "nights and days," meaning 40,000 years, Modern Homo Sapiens, the "water," the peoples and nations, exploded,... population wise, as if it were a sudden flood or tidal wave. They apparently out competed Neanderthal Man, the dominate Hominoid before this, driving him away, and probably exterminating him in the most noble fashion and behavior common to Modern Homos.

The "ark" which is symbolic of a closed cube shaped box, refers to the skull of Modern Homo Sapiens. Inside was the "three floors" of the mind: the Conscious Mind, the Subconscious Mind, and the Unconscious Mind.

The rainbow of seven colors, which is mentioned, referred to the seven modes of thinking available to us, the seven spirits of Revelation 1:16, the seven psychological Freudian-Jungian Archetypal apparati:
"And in his hand he held the seven "stars" (of our thinking process) Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Superego, Harmony.

That Neanderrthal was without language, his vocal cords anatomically in the wrong place, he had never created spoken names for the animals and wild life. In his absence, and with the power to speak language, the metaphor
tells us that Noah gave names to the animals... for the first time ever, spoken names were heard on the planet!

Anyway, the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation incorporates the whole metphor, nice and neat, right in the story. Brackets are used to fill in the ideas, and the whole interpretation is literally just a suggestion for the reader.
The concise and direct demonstration, that in metaphor, the story confirms both science and an earlier knowledge of paleonthology than our own.
It salutes the Truth of the Holy Scriptures.
It praises the one feature of man, his mind, that makes him different and superior to lower animal forms.
It supports the general hypothetical assumption that the Word is about the "spirit world" of our thinking.
It lays a foundation for continued application of that principle, that scripture is about the preconceptive thoughts in men's mind that is the precursor of their behavior.

This is so powerful in that it makes sense, it avoids all the denigrating secular remarks and disparagements. AND... it even challenges them to be reasonable.

To recognize that this is an ancient report, an eye witness report of an important biological event.

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen. 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit (of Natural Law) shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh (and must adapt to my Reality): yet, (Neanderthal), his days shall be an hundred and twenty (thousand) years.

Gen. 6:4 There were giants (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian and Methusaelian) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) came in unto the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids preceeding the advent of Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.

Gen. 6:5 And GOD, (the Reality of Universal Power) saw that the wickedness of man (including Neanderthal) was great in the earth, and that every imagination of (his abstraction of Reality) the thoughts of his heart (or his psyche) was only evil (and unrealistic) continually (as regards the process of adaption).

Gen. 6:6 And (in) it, (the evolutionary process), repented the LORD that he had made man (all hominoids, in general,) on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (that cataclysmic changes were to come).

Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (Almighty Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (to mentally, in analogy, abstract consciously a model and schmata of Universe) destroy them from the face of the earth (by means of extinction); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his idea of) the beast, and (his idea of) the creeping thing, and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
That has to be the most interesting interpretation I have ever heard. I think, though, as concerns the Neandertals, that they were capable of speech. The hyoid, the bone that makes speech possible, becomes disarticulated and it can be difficult to know where it fit in life. I find it difficult to imagine the Neandertal without at least a fair degree of speech... in many ways they were astoundingly like us.

Another interpretation for the "daughters of men" is that they were devotees of the Anatolian Great Mother Goddess, required to give up their virginity in acts of coitus sanctus (my term), or sacred sex, to ensure the continuity of the natural realm and the fecundity of the earth. This, of course, would be assuming that the Black Sea hypothesis is the correct one, an assertion I am not prepared to make. Ian Wilson makes a decent case for it in "Before the Flood."

Much thanks, kofhy, for the enlightened discourse!

[Maimonides]

There are several questions that have been asked since my last post, and some statements the deserve a reply.

The problem is this: The ones who don’t believe the Bible story of the flood have invented lots of guesses as to what really happened. They, for instance, consider each layer of limestone or other rock as a separate epoch, separated by thousands or millions of years. I, and others like me, look at the strata and consider that it was deposited by giant waves where tides were circling the earth twice every 24 hours. They simply cannot imagine a cataclysm of that magnitude.
So in other words you speculate. My imagination's good enough; I'm a writer. I grew up in church, to boot. The problem isn't conceptualizing it, the problem is there isn't any evidence for it.


Take the St. Helens eruption as an example. That eruption flattened millions of trees in a few seconds. It sloshed a giant wave in Spirit Lake 600 feet up the opposite end of the lake to bedrock. The eruptions created many strata in seconds that evolutionary geologists elsewhere claim were deposited over thousands or millions of years.

We have pictures of a fossil tree that penetrates many layers of limestone. Canyons at St. Helens were washed through solid rock in hours, not years.
Let me clear up the St. Helens thing... that "canyon" was cut through soft volcanic ash. Very easy to erode. The stuff creates lahars, mudflows that can bury entire villages. Nothing like eroding the Grand Canyon. I learned this in my college Earth Science course. Nothing spectacular here.

Polystrata fossils are no problemo... what actually happens is that the trees become buried over time, subsequent layers deposited to create that effect. A big tree trunk won't decay in that time, but very often its branches will, which is precisely what you see in a lot of these fossils.

Finally, as to the age of layers... one simply cannot "assume" that they're "thousands or millions" of years old; simply ridiculous. One has to obtain dates through radiometric dating, proven and reliable in these matters.

[Maimonides]

Gidday Lion,

In a general reply to everyone you wrote:-

Lion:- The ones who don’t believe the Bible story of the flood have invented lots of guesses as to what really happened.

Have you ever heard of the word “projection” in the context of these debates – namely accusing your opponent of doing that which you do?

The remainder of your posting beyond this sentence is just that – your wild speculation!

Whether your story is plausible or implausible, you really have no idea because it is not grounded in any evidence – save for the most trivial i.e the existence of geological strata, the existence of a volcano (Mt St Helens), the existence of a supercontinent at one time (one of several) etc.

You weave all of these together in one hand-waved, fantastic story after having accused your opponents of “invent lots of guesses”.

Do you have any evidence that the geological strata were laid down in tides which cirlced the earth twice in 24 hours? Or is this just a convenience you invented to explain the geological strata? I reckon the the strata were laid down 20 layers a day. No wait, I have just had a glass of wine. Make that 400 layers a day. Tomorrow when I arise from bed I shall declare it to be 1 layer every 30 days. No matter. Because I ignore what they say, I can just call geologists speculators and the inventors of stories when it suits, and instead offer trivial observation coupled with wild guess as a scientific theory.

How can you even consider that the continents were once assembled into one supercontinent at one stage? Why not just another invention? What about the notion that some 6,000 m of ice has gone from Sweden? Why accept that? Just another piece of speculation, surely!

Realy Lion you just pick and choose what you wish and pretend that nothing else exists.

Tch!

Have you ever read many geological text books and journals where strata show alternating layers of land (volcanic, desert, wet, dry) and ocean evironments and in which the strata show a range of attibutes ranging from the undisturded to the disturbed. Furthermore these strata just do not show dates that suit your fantastic imaginings.

If you object that modern dating methods are “rot” and can therefore be ignored then consider your responses in the other thread (Young-Earth Christians: How Old is the Earth?), where these methods were explained. You continually ignored requests for clarifications from others and showed no sense that you had even read or considered what geochron, rach12 and monkey-boy had written.

IOW, your judgement of “rot” is based on ignoring what is argued in the first case then calling it “speculation” when forced to consider it. IOW, you have no basis for rejecting modern dating methods other than by your own (here it is again) speculations.

IOW your arguments are not based on consistent and coherent argument. Rather they are based on fantastic machinations on your behalf, supported by your continual refusal to respond to your opponents other than by ignoring what had been written to you and requested from you.

No wonder you can write that we invent stories. You ignore what is being argued and asked of you and by maintaining such a stance you confuse argument and evidence from others with pure speculation on your behalf.

I too can use continental drift, herds of animals, sudden snow storms, Mt St Helens to “prove” anything I want.

I propose proof for the [i]Epic of Gilgamesh.

Acceptable to you?

If not then why not? (“Angry gods” is not a satisfactory answer given that your god also gets angry.)


Regards, Roland
As to proof for the Epic of Gilgamesh... how about: faith?:wink: Who has more faith, the Biblical YECs or the Gilgamesh YECs? Seriously, it's a good point.

[HerodionRomulus]

The notion of the replacement of Neanderthals DOES seem to be one of the most unique interpretations I've ever seen.
But I could have beaten that back in my LSD days. :eek:

[Maimonides]

So It’s a myth, is it? The title of his thread is believers in the lost ark, therefore people like Geochron should not post here. He is an apostle of long ages and unless he has had a change of heart he has no busness muddying the waters. The Bible story of the flood is not a myth, it is real.

The disaster of the flood came because the creator was sorry he had made the earth. The earth was filled with violence. Nearly every newscast on TV has a subtitle of the war on terror. If it isnt some Palestinian blowing himself up and killing Israelis it is something about Usama Bin Laden or worry about terrorist threat on the Washington state ferry system. The threat may be real.

The Bible is clear that men are getting worse and worse and thinking up more destructive ways of killing more people.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Pet 3:3-7

Notice this, They are willingly ignorant. They don’t WANT to know. Thy call it a fable, a story with no basis in fact. Sorry, the Bible has been proven true, and it is fire next time.
So if we don't agree with you (on no factual basis, seemingly), it's lights out and sulfur and brimstone? Think through what you're saying more carefully. I'm entirely open-minded to the entire YEC timeline: I'm a humble enough individual to admit I can be wrong. But I haven't seen a shard of good evidence for the Noachian Flood, young earth, etc. etc. Your hard-liner status is only hurting your cause.

[Lion]

Roland said
How can you even consider that the continents were once assembled into one supercontinent at one stage? Why not just another invention? What about the notion that some 6,000 m of ice has gone from Sweden? Why accept that? Just another piece of speculation, surely!
------
Obviously you have not tried to keep up with the scientific world . There is nothing so solid as good old terra Firma, right? WRONG. THE CONTINENTS ARE ACTUALLY FLOATING ON A SEA OF SEMIMOLTEN MANTLE SEVERAL HUNDRED MILES THICK. If you get in a boat it sinks into the water an amount equal to your weight. When lake Bonneville dried up,(that’s where lots of speed trials are held) surveys showed the the eastern shore was 87 feet higher than the western shore. That was because the bouyancy of the mantle pushed it up. I referred to sweden having a 6000 foot layer of ice. We know that because the coastline of the Scandinavian area has risen about 200 feet due to the ice load having melted. Actually it is more than that because the sea level has risen over 500 feet because of the melting ice. Call me wrong if you want, but it just shows your ignorance.

-----------
You said
If you object that modern dating methods are “rot” and can therefore be ignored then consider your responses in the other thread (Young-Earth Christians: How Old is the Earth?), where these methods were explained. You continually ignored requests for clarifications from others and showed no sense that you had even read or considered what geochron, rach12 and monkey-boy had written.

IOW, your judgement of “rot” is based on ignoring what is argued in the first case then calling it “speculation” when forced to consider it. IOW, you have no basis for rejecting modern dating methods other than by your own (here it is again) speculations.

IOW your arguments are not based on consistent and coherent argument. Rather they are based on fantastic machinations on your behalf, supported by your continual refusal to respond to your opponents other than by ignoring what had been written to you and requested from you.

No wonder you can write that we invent stories. You ignore what is being argued and asked of you and by maintaining such a stance you confuse argument and evidence from others with pure speculation on your behalf.
-----------

To imagine a cataclysm of a world flood, you have to imagine, with something equivalent to 'Grimes Fairy Tales' or maybe Stephen Spielberg and Walt Disney animation, how limestone over a mile thick could ever be deposited in a world catastrophic flood.

So if we don't agree with you (on no factual basis, seemingly), it's lights out and sulfur and brimstone? Think through what you're saying more carefully. I'm entirely open-minded to the entire YEC timeline: I'm a humble enough individual to admit I can be wrong. But I haven't seen a shard of good evidence for the Noachian Flood, young earth, etc. etc. Your hard-liner status is only hurting your cause.
-----------------------
It is useless to continue this discussion. We are just talking past each other you refuse to listen to what I have to say.

adieu