The Flood did it or didn't it happen

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Then we come to the Mayans of ancient Central America, far removed from the areas of the Bible. What do we read in their sacred text the Popul Vuh?

"And so a flood was brought about by the Heart of Heaven; a great flood was formed which fell on the heads of the wooded creatures...a heavy resin fell from the sky...the face of the earth was darkened and as a black rain began to fall by day and by night...the wooden figures (mankind) were annihilated, destroyed, broken up and killed."

Compare that to Genesis 7:15-23:

"15 And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which [is] the breath of life. 16 So those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the LORD shut him in. 17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of the spirit of life, all that [was] on the dry [land,] died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth."

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

One person on this forum once proposed the idea (an old one too) that the Flood was simply a story conjured up to make a point about good and evil WITHIN the Hebrew context and that it was NOT literal. Well I find it highly coincidental that all these people had the very same basic story to make a similar point. Incidentally, even in the Atlantis account that semms to hang around like a bad dream, that civilization is said to have come to an end due a great flood and AGAIN, there is mention of the inhabitants becoming corrupt and stirring up the wrath of the gods.

If the Flood never happened and all it was was simply a made up story to teach a moral, are WE learning anything from it?

I guess the Flood story can go down in history as the most ubiquitous story that NEVER happened.

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Let's let Professor Hibben of the University of Mexico weigh in here:

"...the twisted parts of animals and trees intermingled with lenses of ice and layers of peat and mosses...bison, horses, wolved, bears, lions...whole herds of animals were apparently killed together, overcome by some common power...[b]Such piles of bodies of animals or men simply do not occur by any ordinary natural means..."

It continues...

"[There is] evidence of atmospheric disturbances of unparalled violence. Mammoth and bison alike were toen and twisted as though by a cosmic hand in Godly rage..."

[jedi]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

(((Mutty))) I don't want to leave you alone with this but are you using just one source or should I go ahead and give mine as a supplement to yours? No sense us both using the same reference. I am lost here. I will come back around 4p.m. to add my two cents. OK I just saw what you are doing I will use what I have then as a view from a theologian.

[rebelgirl]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

It's all interesting Mutty I'm definitely checking out about some of the stuff you posted. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I will re-add however my comment that flood stories in themselves are not what I would consider conclusive evidence. Floods are not unusual anywhere on the planet. On the west coast here the natives have a story of a great wall of water that rose up and swamped the land. Geology supports this. But in this case it was a tsunami of giant proportions most likely caused by an underwater landslide (this area is very prone to earthquakes) this event took place roughly 500 hundred years ago. There is also evidence that it has happened roughly every half a millennia or so on the coast hence an oral tradition has evolved that the creator needs to cleanse the earth with water ever so often. Tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes producing huge ash plumes that effect the climate, and cause exception years of rain. El nino, la Nina, post ice age melts. Many environmental factors have produced huge floods in different areas of the world at different times.

One theory relates to the last ice age. That some area's experience rapid melting of the ice sheets due to a condition similar to our present global warming, after a extremely large volcanic eruption. Causing catastrophic flooding, about 10,000 years ago, a short enough time ago for our ancestors living in the flooded area to pass on the oral stories of their experiences during those floods. There is ice core evidence to support the idea of a sudden warm up at that time.

However There isn't geological evidence, to support the entire planet experiencing a flood at one time, these are incidences isolated to particular areas of the planet. but not all of it at once.

And how would a species that had no knowledge of the environmental factors that caused these floods explain it. My theory (but not just mine) Is that we would think a God or powerful spirit made it happen to punish us for not behaving in the desired manner. Just as the Hawaiians thought Pele would cause the volcanoes to blow it's top, if they did not show proper respect. It is in our nature to think that when something happens it is as a result of incorrect action. The Hindu idea of Karma is a form of the same reaction to negative things that happen to us beyond our control. All around the world people have developed these ways of explaining environmental disasters.

[Kimoni]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Greetings All,

This appears to be a very thought provoking and nerve striking topic. I just wanted to ask if anyone has ever read the Sumerian Tablets. These tablets do not convince me to be the absolute of all answers, however, it does provide an insurmountable amount of evidence in regards to a Higher Being and our creation. One of the greatest mysteries humans have tried to understand is "What do we come from?". Creation or Evolution? Were we created by a mystical god-like figure in its image? Did we simply just evolve from a lower species like Homo Erectus? Are we supposed to fully believe we just appeared in modern form from dirt? Are we supposed to believe that virtually overnight modern humans evolved from primates? It's hard to accept either, because neither of them add up or make sense. But there is an answer in those two statements that is completely valid and without the Sumerian Tablets, this answer would be lost.

The answer? Creation and Evolution are one and the same (for us anyway) as described by the (up to) 6,000 year old text. Man was created from an already evolved species called Homo Erectus. Given another 40 million years, sure, man could have evolved from Homo Erectus by itself....but in a mere 300,000 years?? How can scientists say this with a straight face? The Anunnaki (those who from heaven to earth came) were the creators of man. They took homo erectus and 'upgraded' it with the DNA of the Anunnaki themselves....giving us the 'godly' element. These beings from a planet in our own solar system (labeled planet x by scientists) were our gods. We knew them as our creators and thus spawned entire religions based off of them.

The garden of eden was E.DIN in the sumerian tablets. Adam was the ADAMU....and the adam was created to work the land. In sumerian, the word 'man' means "domesticated worker". Plus, the entire Old Testatment resides in the sumerian tablets, except in their original form. So, what is the truth? The Sumerian Tablets may be just another key to the puzzle or may even be completely false. But what really makes sense? Did a mystical god create man? Did evolution create man overnight (in the scope of acceptable evolution)? or, did highly advanced beings from another planet come to earth in search of gold, upgraded a primative race to be suitable slaves for mining the gold? However, after seing how reacted to our surroundings and each other as we evolved, left us here in an "as is" state of being? Well, that's up to you to decide. After you read the Sumerian Tablets with an open mind...

[rebelgirl]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Hi Kojo welcome to the debate [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

One small thing Homo erectus lived from approximately 2 million to around 400,000 years ago.H. erectus may have been the first species to use and control fire. This milestone in human development occurred 1 to l.5 million years ago. Control of fire may have enabled humans to move out of Africa and into colder climates in Europe and Asia.

The earliest specimens of Homo erectus are found in Africa, but, sometime after 1 million years ago, Homo erectus apparently migrated out of Arica. Tools and remains of this species have been found widely distributed in Europe and Asia. Homo erectus is thus the first human species to migrate out of Africa and adapt to a variety of Old World environments.

The surviving physical evidence, from skulls such as these, suggests that the transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, the earliest forms of our own species, occurred approximately 300,000 to 400,000 years ago. At the same time, more detail begins to be preserved in the fossil record, such as wooden tools and weapons which give evidence of a hunting life-style.

If Homo sapiens developed gradually and in parallel out of widely dispersed Homo erectus populations in Africa, Europe, and Asia (as the physical evidence here suggests), the races are quite old, emerging from the original dispersals of Homo erectus populations 700,00 to l million years ago. In this case, physical or fossil evidence suggests one hypothesis and other forms of evidence suggest another. Reconstructions of our ancestry based on the extent to which the DNA of various groups around the world has diverged from a common origin point suggests a very different hypothesis: that Homo sapiens evolved once, in Africa, and radiated or migrated from that point to the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, replacing Homo erectus populations. According to this view, which rests on the small amount of divergence or variation in our DNA, the races or regional variations in human populations, are relatively recent--only 250,000 years old.

Ooops forgot to put the quote around that because it's not my words [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[jedi]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

I better hurry and put my two cents in before this gets way off topic.

[JM1]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Greetings and welcome Kimoni-Kojo.

Fascinating post there. One thing I am curious about though. What would "highly advanced beings from another planet" need our gold for you think ?

[RollinCalf]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Maybe they had BET before we did.

[jedi]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Excerpt from The Flood by Rehnwinkel:

Fossils in Every Part of the World Evidence for a Universal Flood:
Another and most convincing extra-Biblical evidence for a universal flood as described by Moses is the evidence found in the fossils. By fossils are meant the remains, or the cast, or form, of some organism, usually in petrified form. These fossils have been referred to repeatedly in the diferent parts of this study.

Fossils of all kinds of animal and plant life bouth of existing species and of many forms now extinct have been found. There are fossils of land and sea animals, of fish and of birds. of reptiles and of beautiful insects, of giant trees and delicate leaves and parts of plants. They are found in mountain areas, such as the Rockies, the Alps, the Himalayas, the mountains of Greece and Italy. They occur in great numbers on the plains and prairies of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Idaho, Oregon, and alberta, but they are also found in the Eastern States and the Eastern Povinces of Canada.
They are found on the pampas of South America and on the steppes of Russia, in Siberia and on the Sahara, on the Gobi Desert and in Greenland. In fact, they are found nearly everywhere. Sometimes they have been discovered in caves or in coal mines, in valleys or on mountaintops, near the surface or deep down in the earth, buried under fifty, sixty, one hundred, even thousands of feet of soil, clay, loose gravel, sand and hard stratified rock.

Prominent among the fossils found are those of the mastodon, a giant armadillo, the horse, the Megatherium, glyptodon, and other species. And as in North America, so in South America the mastodon appears to have had a geographical range over nearly the whole continent. And not only are fossils of these animals found in every part of that great body of land, but the conditions in which they are found are similar to the same as those in North America, Europe, Asia, or elsewhere. Bones are found in great heaps or individually; they are found on slopes or on plains; they are found near rivers; or they are found far removed from any body of water or swamp, without signs of gnawing or rotting. In fact, the remains that are found indicate that parts of South America, at least at one time, were inhabited by a rich mamalian fauna of which many genera have disappeared entirely.

As to the cause of death of these myriads of animals, the great naturalist Darwin has the following to say: It is impossible to reflect on the changed state of the American ccontinent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters; now we find mere pigmies compared with the antecedent allied races. The greater number, if not all of these extinct quaddrupeds lived at a period and were the contemporaries of the existing sea shells. Since they lived, no very great changes in the form of the land can have taken place. What, then has exterminated so many species and whole genera? The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil and the Cordillera of Peru, in North America, and up to Beriang Strait, we must shake the entire framework of the globe. Darwin, though hesitating to accept a theory of a great world catastrophe, has no satisfactory solution. But his distinguished successor d'Orbigny has the courage to draw the inescapable conclusion when he writes: "I argue that this destruction was caused by an invasion of the continent by water, a view which is completely en rapport with the facts presented by the great Pampian deposit, which was clearlly laid down by water . How otherwise can we account for this complete destruction and the homogeneousness of the Pampas deposits containing bones? I find an evident proof of this in the immense number of bones and of entire animals whose numbers are greatest at the outlets of the valleys, as Mr. Darwin shows.......This proves that the animals were floated and hence were chiefly carried to the coast."

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Jedi I was not referencing Rehnwinkel of course. I purposely chose an author who is well known but is NOT a Christian nor pretends to be lest it appear as Christian thought against non Christian thought. Rehnwinkel is a Chriatian author and while his work is a masterpiece in my eyes, you may still have some who at the end of the day ignore him simply because he is a Christian author.

The author I chose is more in line with New age teaching, but I simply found it very interesting he makes such interesting points that can be supported by the Bible.

[jedi]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Originally posted by Mutty:
[qb]Jedi I was not referencing Rehnwinkel of course. I purposely chose an author who is well known but is NOT a Christian nor pretends to be lest it appear as Christian thought against non Christian thought. Rehnwinkel is a Chriatian author and while his work is a masterpiece in my eyes, you may still have some who at the end of the day ignore him simply because he is a Christian author.

The author I chose is more in line with New age teaching, but I simply found it very interesting he makes such interesting points that can be supported by the Bible.[/qb]

Mutty I see your point, [img]/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] and I understood that but then I reasoned within myself that because an author is Christian doesn't mean that he would misrepresent the facts. And I am glad in fact that you did that because it shows that both are in agreement on the topic, if not in personal beliefs. The facts are really what counts. Thanks man [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[rebelgirl]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

A question Jedi. From the information I have been able to find on Rehwinkle this book was written in 1951 is the book called "The flood in the light of the Bible"? just wondering cause I haven't been able to find much on him.

One thing I notice is completely abscent from you exert is he fails to mention if any dating was done on the fossils or the layers of rock they were found in. I have some very interesting stuff on the "evidence for a global flood I would like to share, a cyber aquaintance of mine, who's a scientist, helped me write this up:

1. The oldest rocks where fossils have been found are sands and shales deposited in a marine environment (that is, in the sea). They were deposited in a time known as the Cambrian. They contain lots of fossil arthropoda (insect-like animals like trilobites etc). But NO fish, NO mammals.

2. On top of these there are more marine sands and shales, known as 'Ordovician' and 'Silurian'. Not only trilobites, but lots of shells and worms and other little sea creatures appear now as well.

Still, NO fish, NO mammals, NO land animals ANYWHERE.

Interestingly, there are variations in the size of the particles making up the sediments. Lots of it is very fine-grained,ie. has been laid down in very calm water. Other layers contain many nicely rounded pebbles. No way they have been laid down in calm water.... they have been deposited right on the coastline where they were constantly moved around by the waves and lost all their sharp edges through continually abrasing against each others.

These pebble-bearing sands and the very fine stuff alternates a number of times - the coast was now nearby, then again far away. It shows that sealevel was not constant but varied considerably during this time.

Also, we find here layers of limestone, indicating warm and shallow water (because the little animals forming the calcium carbonate which forms these rocks can only live in warm, tropical, waters)

Why do geologist separate these rocks into two periods, Ordovicium and Silurian? Well, for one reason, they do not lie parallel on top of each other. In fact, the Silurian layers lie flatter on top of more tilted Ordovician layers. How can this be if we may safely assume that the sediments are generally laid down in flat layers?
At the very least it indicates a gap in the geological record.

This makes up the 'Older Paleozoic'.

So how does this relate to the flood model?

Problem 1: No fossils ANYWHERE of fish or mammals. Where were they??

Problem 2: Good indications of many fluctuations in water energy, ie. water depth (the deeper, the less movement at the sea floor, in general). So, the sea level went up, down, up, down etc. etc. a good many times.

Problem 3: It was nice and warm in the UK back then - tropical, in fact. How is this possible if all this happened in England only 6000 years ago, when the climate was just like it is now?

Problem 4: Why is there suddenly a gap in the deposition of the sediments between Ordovician and Silurain sediments?

Problem 5: Why do we see all these sea sediments nicely exposed hundreds of feet above sea level, but only in the Western part of the country? I'd say because in this part of England they have been uplifted long after their deposition, and erosion has subsequently removed everything younger which was ever laid down on top of them. This needs a LOT of time, though...

Oh yeah, part of this erosion was clearly caused by a massively thick glacier slowly moving through the landscape. Bit difficult, just after a tropical sea, isn't it?

Overlying the Lower Paleozoic we find sediments from the Devonian. In some places these are thick marine sands and shales (ie. deposited in the sea). Most importantly, we suddenly start to find fossils of fish bones (plus still most of the older lifeforms, such as trilobites and shells). However, in other areas of Britain the Devonian consists of red-coloured sands and shales without many fossils at all. The structure of the beds, the size and shape of the grains, the red colour caused by iron oxide all point compellingly to one explanation: this stuff was laid down in a desert. It directly compares to what you can find in modern sand deserts.

These Devonian sediments are in their turn overlain by the Carboniferous. At first there are very thick limestones containing fossil reefs, but then something special is found: very rich, thick layers of coal which have their origin in tropical swamps covered with lush vegetation. Apart from many, many plant fossils (fern-like) we also find beautiful insects, scorpions and other land animals. None of these are found in any of the earlier rocks. But, still no dinosaurs, no mammals, no humans.

After this period, something changed again and we are back in the desert. Very thick and extensive, this New Red Sandstone forms a large part of the English Midlands. Interestingly, a sub-period of this time saw very thick salt deposits formed over a very large area (extending from Eastern England through the North Sea to Holland and Germany). Such salt deposits are typically formed in shallow seas or lakes in a desert environment (compare to to-days Arabian Gulf), which are temporarily shut-off from the main oceans so that evaporation almost dries them out. There is plenty of evidence for a number of cycles of flooding and drying-out.

How do we interpret this? Well, I would say that the part of the world containing the UK was slowing moving North all the time, having started somewhere near the equator (warm, humid) it slowly moved through the dryer but still warm Northern desert climatological belt (ie. the latitude where we now find the Southern USA deserts, the Sahara and the Gobi desert). This is pure plate tectonics and is very well confirmed by paleo-magnetic measurements.

Also we see again constant fluctuations of sea level, sometimes deeper (shales), then shallow seas (limestones), coastal (swamps), or absent altogether (desert). It really goes up and down. Life was evolving from invertebrates to fish, and the land became populated with plants and insects.

So, where's the flood? Before all of this? During all of this? or after all of this?

we have now arrived in the Mesozoic, or 'Middle Life'. This has historically been separated from the previous period because the fossil content is so different. A major extiction took place at the
end of the Paleozoic, about 85% of marine species died out and have gone forever (a.o. the lovely trilobites).

Why? Theories abound, one of them relates this extinction with the clear evidence for an Ice Age as found in a number of places such as Arabia and South Africa. Remember, the continents were not where they are now! As a consequence of so much water trapped in the land ice, sea level was a lot lower, continental shelves were very narrow and so the natural habitat of many marine species was severely restricted, leading to intense competition and extinctions.

Anyway, the positive side is that after this period there suddenly appear many new types of land animals, such as dinosaurs.

The first period of the Mesozoic was the Triassic, mainly land sediments indicative of a desert environment. Slowly the sea level rose, and in the Jurassic we find warm water limestones (with many new types of fossils, such as ammonites).

Now I have to draw a bit on evidence from the many thousands of oil and gas wells drilled offshore. Wilst in onshore England we continue to see marine sediments, the North Sea was actually land during part of the Jurassic. We find evidence for swamps with coals, and beach sand deposits, and so on. An interesting reversal from today's situation.

After the Jurassic came the Cretaceous, at first with shallow-water sands and shales which are nicely exposed in the South of England (dinosaurs have been found here) This is followed by the very, very thick, white,Chalk limestones, famous from the white cliffs of Dover....

Chalk is funny stuff. it is very pure calcium carbonate and consists of zillions of microscopic particles produced by algae, and some coarser shell fragments. The entire Chalk 'layer'can be thousands of feet thick, as we now from numerous boreholes. It originated in a fairly shallow, warm and tranquil sea.

This brings us to the end of the Mesozoic.

So, what we see is a continuation of the Northward drift of Western Europe and long periods of high sea levels to account for the many marine sediments. But, in between these we find, time and again, evidence for land sedimentation or the vicinity of the coastline. Sea level goes up and down all the time.

Most sediments of this period look as if they were deposited in fairly quiet water. No indications of catastropic floods are seen in the UK.

The fossils are very different from what is seen before, and also very different from what came after. Plenty of fish, shells (including
the famous ammonites) and reptiles / dinosaurs. No mammals, no humans.

And at the end of this period, something disastrous happened, and all dinosaurs and many sea creatures became extinct.....but it wasn't a flood.

The 'hot' theory of the moment is that a giant meteorite hit the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous. The main argument for this is that a thin layer of clay with an exceptionnaly large amount of the metal Iridium in it has been found in many locations worldwide. This clay layer can be dated as coinciding exactly with the extinction moment of nearly all of the species wich disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous (especally the abundant marine microfossils which in fact form the backbone of geological dating, much more so than the more exciting macrofossils of large animals and plants).

Now, Iridium is a very rare metal on Earth, but is quite common in meteorites. The idea is that the meteorite exploded into tiny dust particles upon impact, which were blown right into the atmosphere. This dust cloud, which of course also contained a large volume of material from the impact site, clouded over a large part of the Earth and blocked the sunlight. This caused a catastrophic short-term climate change. Many species could not adapt to those sudden new conditions and perished. Others, not too many, managed somehow to survive and formed the evolutionary basis for all animals and plants which lived afterwards.

And yes, people believe that we know where the impact happened: at the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. There are quite good indications for this.

A flood? Sorry - the sediments on either side of the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary are different all over the world. Someties deep water, sometimes shallow, sometimes land. Often there is a gap in the geological record - no sedimentation, because that particular area happened to be on land. (This is very common in geological history - very few places, if any, have a continuous record). But there is no single, worldwide flood deposit.

In terms of the Earth, nothing extraordinary was happening at all in terms of geology. The impact was a sudden, dramatic moment against a backdrop of a slowly evolving world.

Please keep in mind that we are still well before the time of human fossils.

We are now in the Tertiary. All those nice dinosaurs have gone, and many other species (the abundant marine ammonites, for instance). Nowhere in any rocks laid down after (i.e. 'on top') of the Mesozoic rocks have dinosaurs ever been found.

For England, the Tertiary was rather a quiet period. The Chalk sea retreated and there was little sedimentation over most of the area except in the South-East. There, the shoreline was never far away, and we see again an alternation of shallower and deeper marine sediments.

Mammals are now found, and for the first time fossil pollen of grass. That's right, nowhere in the huge amount of older rock have we ever
found fossil grass pollen - the stuff didn't exist before the Tertiary (so, remember: dinosaurs didn't eat grass ).

I'll fast-forward now to the Pleistocene, the time of the Ice Ages. For some reason the worldwide climate cooled down considerably, and huge masses of land ices started to form and expand from the poles outward. Like many things in geology, this was not one simple event: in Britain there is evidence for three separate Ice coverings, separated by periods of warmer climate and retreat of the ice. When a Glacier of several kilometers thick moves (slowly!) over the landscape, the effects are dramatic. Entire valleys are gouged out, rounded hills break up and get sculpted into jagged peaks and ridges through the effects of frost. And when the Ice retreats it leaves behind a colossal jumble of sand, pebbles and rocks which it picked up on it's way. Most of this is still there and forms the present-day landscape.

Finally, the climate warmed up again and we are where we are now.

In this last period we then finally find human fossils. Flint tools have been found in many places, and the finest Stone Age monument of the world, Stonehenge, still stands proudly.

So, no flood. In the long history documented by the geology we have seen many different environments, and even some catastrophes. But underneath it all there is a steady progression, the land started near the equator and moved ever so slowly North. And all the time sea level fell, rose, fell, rose in an endless dance faithfully recorded by the sediments.

Animals and plants came, and went, and others came in turn - but all very orderly. This history of development of life is what evolution is all about.

It is complex, I have only scratched the surface. Note that I have never mentioned the absolute age - but there is enough data from crystalline rocks interspersed with the sediments to allow us to give dates. What I have described here began some 500 million years ago, the Mesozoic started some 200 million years ago and the meteorite hit us 70 million years ago. The Ice Age started 1.5 million years ago and Stonehenge is, I believe, 6000 years old.

You know, geology is not rocket science. It is based on physics, chemistry and biology, but what it most resembles is: forensic science. We stand at the crime scene, we see all the evidence, and we have to piece together an explanation of what happened. And nature, like some suspects, will not confess. All we can do is build a strong case, and let the jury decide.

also absent is the flattening and erosion that would have take place on the major mountain ranges around the world if such a flood had happened.

One final note many of today's large mountain ranges such as the Himalayas were formed but the collision of continental plates. Many of these mountains were once at sea level. so the finding of sea fossils on mountains is not remarkable nor unexpected. The Himalayas themselves were once a part of an Asiatic sea which they believe was first isolated into a large salt water lake and then through thousands of years of pressure and seismic activity formed into the mountains we know today. In fact the Himalayas are still rising and much of the area is still very seismically active.

I think the evidence is irrefutable: it all took a very, very long time. Much happened, but a world-wide flood is just nowhere recorded.

Examining this flood question has lead me to allot of sites claiming the flood has happened, and I have found a lot of flaws in most of the info they provide as proof.

Nice discussion Jedi I like talking about this stuff when everything is civil. It's a very interesting debate [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Edited because wordpad really messed up the formating when I pasted my reply [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[mountaingal]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

It would appear that different cultures have different stories of "The Flood" because it is part of natural phenomena. (I think this was where rebel was going.)

The constructive and destructive power of water would be known to many peoples. It's mystical properties, too, e.g., the flood that gushes out of a woman about to give birth, would also give rise to myths about the power of water/flood. What people don't understand and fear they usually ascribe to God or gods.