God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

Jesus address in heaven.

Ya? what is his zip code?

he told only truth

YOU mean the authors who contradict each other told the truth?

However the flood count was real history.

Factually it was not.


If YOU cannot provide an exact date of the flood, then it factually never happened.

Provide a date.

 

[outhouse]

. I believe there was an ice age after the Flood.

You believe what you want. But we don't like dishonesty.

The date on the Flood is irrelevant

Yes it is relevant. No date provided means it factually never happened.


Historical events are known and dated to a time period. Because they have historicity.

Mythology has no date because IT NEVER TOOK PLACE.

 

[jonathan180iq]

1. The lack of (enough) objects found in the Kuiper Belt is the reason why there is an Oort Cloud hypothesis.

So you're saying that Jan Oort, back in the 1940s and 50s, (at least a year before the Kuiper Belt hypothesis came into being) invented his own hypothesis to account for the lack of the objects that existed in a yet hypothesized hypothesis?

Seems like Jan Oort needs to be recognized for his Psychic powers, not his contributions to Astronomical Physics...

2. I believe there was an ice age after the Flood. The ice would not have reached Mesopotamia and so the scriptures records the Flood only. Think about the conditions for an ice age--lots of precipitation churning from warm oceans, cold land masses...

So, after the Flood, which would have killed everyone on the planet according the scripture, there was an Ice Age, during which there is tons of evidence for the existence of humans and animals going about their daily lives like it never even phased them... Even if you tweak this idea some, you're still only arguing for a smaller, localized flood, which is not the deluge of Genesis, either literally or of theologically.

3. The date on the Flood is irrelevant in terms of whether 4,500 or 4.5 Million years ago. You will reject the Flood saying there is no geologic evidence. The dimensions of the mountain ranges themselves and etc. are in part parcel of modern Flood theory. Looking at individual strata instead of wondering where the Marianas trench, the entire thing, hails from--kind of like looking at the entire universe as a scale model and then looking at a few pebbles to "prove" the entire universe is mechanical/random and not designed.

The Marianas trench was formed by tectonic subduction, which is another area of science that you'll have to reject in order to maintain your current belief system. People who study the Universe look at as much of the Universe as they can. People who study geology look at as much of geology as they can. People who study biology look as much of biology as they can. They aren't settling on a few pebbles. They are looking at huge swaths of information before even suggesting these things. If you want to maintain a localized flood, known only to the Mesopotamian and Semitic people's, there's plenty of evidence for that. If you want to suggest that the entire Earth was covered in water, or that a mud house was swept away by a six mile high wall of water, there is no evidence for that.

4. Ice Age theory (and I believe in an Ice Age!) is traced to people who saw geologic evidence for water covering most or all the planet and then extrapolating from the data. Ice is made of water.

By Ice Age theory I'm assuming you mean the idea that the people who wrote of the flood saw evidence of the Ice Age and just made some mythological guesses about what caused them, right?

I mean, Hell, I have evidence of glaciation in my own backyard...

North Georgia Mountains

Now I could make up all kinds of stories about how the rock shapes and formations happened at Rocktown, or I could use observation and testing to help me discover the actual reason for their existence. If you prefer the made up stuff, that's totally cool.

5. What do you fear? Is it that since over 100 ancient cultures teach the Flood that some religious tradition if not Xianity will be supported?

What do we fear?.... This is a little projectionists on your part, isn't it? Of the two of us, for example, which one has a delicately crafted worldview which requires quite a lot of precarious assumptions that we are very emotionally attached to?

The data supports what the data supports - If there was data for a global flood, do you know what science would teach? It would teach that there was a global flood. But since the data supports only localized regional floods, science teaches localized regional floods.

Care to turn that question back around on yourself so you can finally make some progress out of willful ignorance?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, the flood was some hundred thousand years ago? The story has been transferred orally for that long?


Well, if Noah was a Homo sapiens, it must've happened within 150,000 years, since that's about how long H.s. has been on this planet, before that our species didn't exist.


Except that it lasted for a lot, lot, lot longer than 12 months, and it didn't cover all the mountains either. What you're doing is reinterpreting the story, which is fine, but it also means that you're not reading the story literal (which is also great). But that's exactly the point. The story is not to be take literally or historically accurate. If it was historical accurate, we would have to consider the genealogies and "rain" and "water to actually mean rain and water.

Please try to read my posts more carefully. I think your last response must have been composed in a rush, as I cannot imagine you deliberately being that obtuse. You are doing something unwise in your post by saying that today's science will also be tomorrow's science. You are saying "scientists must be right that the last ice age ended 100,000 years ago so Genesis is wrong":

1. I haven't told you a date for the Flood, have I?

2. Are you REALLY unaware that MOSES wrote down the Flood story according to all Jewish and Christian tradition? Did I say "Noah put the story on stele..."?

3. In my own lifetime, dates for and numbers of ice ages have varied WIDELY across thousands to millions of years and one to eight ice ages or more. A lot of Creationists/evangelical Flood theorists currently interpret the geologic data to hypothesize that there was a modest or small ice age following Noah's Flood.

4. In my own lifetime, science has wondered/wandered -- mainstream science -- between 1 Billion and 6 Billion years old for the age of the Earth and Sun. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on shifting sands? Are you sure you want to really say over 100 ancient cultures who teach a global FLOOD as judgment against man don't have a sole source provider for their myths? SLOW DOWN and think. Or dare I say it? Think and pray, too. PLEASE!!!

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you're saying that Jan Oort, back in the 1940s and 50s, (at least a year before the Kuiper Belt hypothesis came into being) invented his own hypothesis to account for the lack of the objects that existed in a yet hypothesized hypothesis?

Seems like Jan Oort needs to be recognized for his Psychic powers, not his contributions to Astronomical Physics...



So, after the Flood, which would have killed everyone on the planet according the scripture, there was an Ice Age, during which there is tons of evidence for the existence of humans and animals going about their daily lives like it never even phased them... Even if you tweak this idea some, you're still only arguing for a smaller, localized flood, which is not the deluge of Genesis, either literally or of theologically.



The Marianas trench was formed by tectonic subduction, which is another area of science that you'll have to reject in order to maintain your current belief system. People who study the Universe look at as much of the Universe as they can. People who study geology look at as much of geology as they can. People who study biology look as much of biology as they can. They aren't settling on a few pebbles. They are looking at huge swaths of information before even suggesting these things. If you want to maintain a localized flood, known only to the Mesopotamian and Semitic people's, there's plenty of evidence for that. If you want to suggest that the entire Earth was covered in water, or that a mud house was swept away by a six mile high wall of water, there is no evidence for that.



By Ice Age theory I'm assuming you mean the idea that the people who wrote of the flood saw evidence of the Ice Age and just made some mythological guesses about what caused them, right?

I mean, Hell, I have evidence of glaciation in my own backyard...

North Georgia Mountains

Now I could make up all kinds of stories about how the rock shapes and formations happened at Rocktown, or I could use observation and testing to help me discover the actual reason for their existence. If you prefer the made up stuff, that's totally cool.



What do we fear?.... This is a little projectionists on your part, isn't it? Of the two of us, for example, which one has a delicately crafted worldview which requires quite a lot of precarious assumptions that we are very emotionally attached to?

The data supports what the data supports - If there was data for a global flood, do you know what science would teach? It would teach that there was a global flood. But since the data supports only localized regional floods, science teaches localized regional floods.

Care to turn that question back around on yourself so you can finally make some progress out of willful ignorance?

Not willful ignorance. Just yesterday, I looked online to see more data on some of these areas including the Flood. I want to know truth the same as you. I do pray when I read facts online but I think I have the same rationalist mindset that you have, which I respect.

I apologize for the miscommunication. A better statement would have been, "Oort Cloud thinking is prevalent now/still because of the current lack of Kuiper Belt objects (admittedly, that have yet been found, of course there may be more out there).

My comments overall, however, should be better respected and taken in the kind spirit in which they are intended. Perhaps this will help:

Yes, I get it. I understand that modern geology and other scientific disciplines reject concepts of a global Flood. For one of several more problematic areas, there simply isn't enough water on Earth to cover landmasses to their current heights. Some scientists--yes-real scientists--including geologists--both Christian and skeptic geologists--have recently been considering possible catastrophes in Earth's past to account for anomalies/mysteries in geology. When we look, for example, at very rapid formations created by and destroyed by volcanism, (Mt. St. Helens and Krakatoa show sudden, dramatic changes we can see in current times) we are forced by the data to conclude that not all island and mountain formations (or reductions) are entirely the process of millions of years or even thousands of years. Scientific creationists and skeptics alike are looking into theories like catastrophic plate techtonics... these hold value for Flood-promoters, sure, but also might someday help to close gaps and anomalies in current scientific thought.

I apologize that we got off onto the wrong foot. It's my fault.

 

[Ouroboros]

as I cannot imagine you deliberately being that obtuse.

Did I make it personally in any of my posts? I'm sorry if I did. I was hoping it would go to that point, calling each other names and being rude.

You are doing something unwise in your post by saying that today's science will also be tomorrow's science.

Well, the science we have today is getting deeper and more detailed in these areas rather than changing. You probably think that the whole science can suddenly be overturned and put out of business because of some new evidence.

You are saying "scientists must be right that the last ice age ended 100,000 years ago so Genesis is wrong":

1. I haven't told you a date for the Flood, have I?

Maybe you're deliberately obtuse not thinking about the ramifications of having a flood 100,000 years ago. And I didn't say the last ice age ended 100,000 years ago. My understanding from your post was that the flood was before the ice age in your opinion. Can you explain? Was it before or after the ice age?

2. Are you REALLY unaware that MOSES wrote down the Flood story according to all Jewish and Christian tradition? Did I say "Noah put the story on stele..."?

And when did Moses live? Just an approximation? Some thousand years ago, and then you are arguing a flood a million years ago? Before even humans existed? So humans jumped on an ark before they even existed on this planet? You just don't make sense.

3. In my own lifetime, dates for and numbers of ice ages have varied WIDELY across thousands to millions of years and one to eight ice ages or more. A lot of Creationists/evangelical Flood theorists currently interpret the geologic data to hypothesize that there was a modest or small ice age following Noah's Flood.

And the ice age began when?

Also, there's isn't enough ice in the polar caps to cover the planet. In fact, if there was enough water to cover the planet, the whole planet would right now be covered in ice, simply because ice has a lower density, i.e. larger volume, than liquid water! But, who knows, maybe scientists are wrong about that too!!!

4. In my own lifetime, science has wondered/wandered -- mainstream science -- between 1 Billion and 6 Billion years old for the age of the Earth and Sun. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on shifting sands? Are you sure you want to really say over 100 ancient cultures who teach a global FLOOD as judgment against man don't have a sole source provider for their myths? SLOW DOWN and think. Or dare I say it? Think and pray, too. PLEASE!!!

Geology is a lot more established and well researched science than you give them credit for.

You SLOW DOWN and think. Or dare I say it? Think and read some scientific literature and for God's sake, try to learn something!!! PLEASE!!!

If you go about being this rude, I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I mean, Hell, I have evidence of glaciation in my own backyard...

That is a beautiful boulder, Jonathan.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That is a beautiful boulder, Jonathan.

Check it out:

Rocktown (Georgia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hike here quite often.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not willful ignorance. Just yesterday, I looked online to see more data on some of these areas including the Flood. I want to know truth the same as you. I do pray when I read facts online but I think I have the same rationalist mindset that you have, which I respect.

I appreciate that. I'm just asking you to look into some of these claims a little more before suggesting things like your next quote.

I apologize for the miscommunication. A better statement would have been, "Oort Cloud thinking is prevalent now/still because of the current lack of Kuiper Belt objects (admittedly, that have yet been found, of course there may be more out there).

That's still inaccurate, though. The Oort Hypothesis still stands nearly as originally posited, regardless of the existence of the Kuiper Belt. It's still hypothesized and being studied precisely because there are several different angles of attack and points of data which suggest it's existence. The concept has nothing at all to do with it's supposed impact of flood mythology. Every seeder system that is observable in nature has a preceding seeder system. The Oort Cloud would function as the seeder system for the Kuiper belt which serves as a seeder system for any number of asteroids and comets within the inner solar system, just to give a rough example. The evidences and data which suggest the existence of the Oort Cloud are entirely independent on whether or not someone wants to attempt to scientifically prove certain mythologies.

My comments overall, however, should be better respected and taken in the kind spirit in which they are intended. Perhaps this will help:

Yes, I get it. I understand that modern geology and other scientific disciplines reject concepts of a global Flood. For one of several more problematic areas, there simply isn't enough water on Earth to cover landmasses to their current heights. Some scientists--yes-real scientists--including geologists--both Christian and skeptic geologists--have recently been considering possible catastrophes in Earth's past to account for anomalies/mysteries in geology. When we look, for example, at very rapid formations created by and destroyed by volcanism, (Mt. St. Helens and Krakatoa show sudden, dramatic changes we can see in current times) we are forced by the data to conclude that not all island and mountain formations (or reductions) are entirely the process of millions of years or even thousands of years. Scientific creationists and skeptics alike are looking into theories like catastrophic plate techtonics... these hold value for Flood-promoters, sure, but also might someday help to close gaps and anomalies in current scientific thought.

I apologize that we got off onto the wrong foot. It's my fault.

Fair enough.
I've tried to make the point that I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. And I'll admit that I tend to give no warrant to Creationist arguments because so often they are based on incredibly flawed presuppositional reasoning, and require, as I've stated, a blatant denial of nearly every branch of science and cumulative knowledge.

While there are some out-liers in Geologic studies, they certainly aren't in enough quantity, or mysterious enough, to warrant any kind of drastic change to modern geologic understandings. Our overall models still function very well and individual episodes, like the ones you have described, are sufficient reason to explain the existence of certain anomalies.

The fact that Meteor Crater is still visible out in Arizona tells you everything you need to know about the comparison of Biblical fables with factual events... It struck the Earth back when Wooly Mammoths and Giant Sloths were scattered all over the North American Continent, and from what I can tell, humans wouldn't even have made it onto the continent any earlier than 20,000 years after the fact... Think about that time period for a moment... All of modern human civilization only goes back some 10,000 years. You'd have to double the time period between the first seed ever being planted for cultivation and your birth before people would have even had a chance to discover this impact site. Wouldn't a global flood have caused a little more erosion?

Noah's Ark is simply full of so many holes that it could never have floated.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, I get it. I understand that modern geology and other scientific disciplines reject concepts of a global Flood.

Not just other. MANY scientific disciplines in academia.

Which means you stand against academia.

Did your religion teach you to be honest? is that why you stated you stand with academia? how can that be considered honest?

 

[outhouse]

1. I haven't told you a date for the Flood, have I?

Because you cannot. It would have to be a real historical event before you could give a date.

2. Are you REALLY unaware that MOSES wrote down the Flood story according to all Jewish and Christian tradition?

No moses wrote a word in any book, unless he came back from the dead and wrote about his own death.

Moses is not even a credible historical figure. Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites.


SORRY YOU LOSE AT EVERY CREDIBLE ACADEMIC TURN.

 

[gnostic]

All,

1. The lack of (enough) objects found in the Kuiper Belt is the reason why there is an Oort Cloud hypothesis.

2. I believe there was an ice age after the Flood. The ice would not have reached Mesopotamia and so the scriptures records the Flood only. Think about the conditions for an ice age--lots of precipitation churning from warm oceans, cold land masses...

3. The date on the Flood is irrelevant in terms of whether 4,500 or 4.5 Million years ago. You will reject the Flood saying there is no geologic evidence. The dimensions of the mountain ranges themselves and etc. are in part parcel of modern Flood theory. Looking at individual strata instead of wondering where the Marianas trench, the entire thing, hails from--kind of like looking at the entire universe as a scale model and then looking at a few pebbles to "prove" the entire universe is mechanical/random and not designed.

4. Ice Age theory (and I believe in an Ice Age!) is traced to people who saw geologic evidence for water covering most or all the planet and then extrapolating from the data. Ice is made of water.

5. What do you fear? Is it that since over 100 ancient cultures teach the Flood that some religious tradition if not Xianity will be supported?

The more you post of what you believed to be "historical" or "scientific" when actual fact, it is quite the opposite, and what you believe to be not "scientific" or "historical", when they really are, the more you just make sound desperate and ignorant.

If that sound harsh, but look at all the wild and insanely ignorant claims and interpretations you have made, as well as biased excuses for these claims and interpretations.

Clearly, you really don't have much education in any field of science or history, and yet you continued spin wild stories of what you think or believe you.

Time and time again, you keep making wild claims or making excuses of this or that about religion.

A wiser guy would not say or write anything that he know nothing or little about, to avoid looking a fool, but clearly you don't have such sense.

You can believe anything you like or have personal opinion on any issue or any matter, but you are digging yourself a deeper grave that you can't get yourself out of it, if you think you can fool any of us that you have knowledge in science or history, which clearly you don't have.

A number of us, do have knowledge, qualifications or experiences in the fields we have chosen, and you have been debunked a number of times.

You claimed that Kuiper Belt doesn't exist and it is hypothetical, but then later you backtracked this claims, but then try to divert Kuiper Belt as there being not enough objects, as if you know what you are talking about.

First, you claimed that the flood happened, literally and globally, but can only make some wild claims about the Grand Canyon, linking it Noah's Flood, but the truth is, you really don't know anything about geology, or how the strata formed at Grand Canyon.

Then you go on about this global Flood happening, not in the early Bronze Age, but BEFORE the Ice Ages. Seriously?

No one is taking you seriously because you have been shooting your claims everywhere, but missing every marks that you have set yourself with. It's like you keep shooting yourself in the foot, repeatedly.

The smartest thing you could do right now, would be to ask help in understanding the science, not making things up as you have been doing in this thread.

 

[outhouse]

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[shawn001]

Please try to read my posts more carefully. I think your last response must have been composed in a rush, as I cannot imagine you deliberately being that obtuse. You are doing something unwise in your post by saying that today's science will also be tomorrow's science. You are saying "scientists must be right that the last ice age ended 100,000 years ago so Genesis is wrong":

1. I haven't told you a date for the Flood, have I?

2. Are you REALLY unaware that MOSES wrote down the Flood story according to all Jewish and Christian tradition? Did I say "Noah put the story on stele..."?

3. In my own lifetime, dates for and numbers of ice ages have varied WIDELY across thousands to millions of years and one to eight ice ages or more. A lot of Creationists/evangelical Flood theorists currently interpret the geologic data to hypothesize that there was a modest or small ice age following Noah's Flood.

4. In my own lifetime, science has wondered/wandered -- mainstream science -- between 1 Billion and 6 Billion years old for the age of the Earth and Sun. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on shifting sands? Are you sure you want to really say over 100 ancient cultures who teach a global FLOOD as judgment against man don't have a sole source provider for their myths? SLOW DOWN and think. Or dare I say it? Think and pray, too. PLEASE!!!

The solar system.

"How old is the Solar System? That is a question that cuts to the heart of it all. By studying several things, mostly meteorites, and using radioactive dating techniques, specifically looking at daughter isotopes, scientists have determined that the Solar System is 4.6 billion years old. Well, give or take a few million years. That age can be extended to most of the objects and material in the Solar System.

The United States Geological Survey(USGS) website has a lot of indepth material about how the age of the Solar System was determined."

How Old is the Solar System?

Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record :

Ice core samples going back a million years shows no flood.

Volcanoes we know never went out they were erupting.

Places in the Atacama dessert in Chile have had less then 2 inches of rain in almost 23 million years or more.

Driest Place on Earth


The driest place on Earth is in Antarctica in an area called the Dry Valleys, which have seen no rain for nearly 2 million years.

Driest Place on Earth


The ice age caused a massive flood in the NW, the largest anyone knows about.

The impact from Glacial Lake Missoula and the Missoula floods can be seen in parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Testifying to the cataclysm are the ancient shorelines, ripple marks, scoured lakes, dry channels, falls, and flood debris that are still visible after nearly 12,000 years. Without seeing this evidence it is hard to imagine the enormity of the geologic event.



Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods

 

[shawn001]

Meanwhile if you haven't seen this, which also has no evidence of a flood.


Scientists Discover Massive New Magma Chamber Under Yellowstone

Scientists Discover Massive New Magma Chamber Under Yellowstone : The Two-Way : NPR

It could fill the grand canyon 11.2 times with magma

 

[BilliardsBall]

All,

I'm sorry to disagree, but you are making some circular statements and assumptive statements. Example, and please take this in the kind spirit in which it is intended:

The fact that Meteor Crater is still visible out in Arizona tells you everything you need to know about the comparison of Biblical fables with factual events... It struck the Earth back when Wooly Mammoths and Giant Sloths were scattered all over the North American Continent, and from what I can tell, humans wouldn't even have made it onto the continent any earlier than 20,000 years after the fact...

Assumptions in that bit alone include:

We know with certainty when Meteor Crater was formed
" " how Meteor Crater was formed
" " all the circumstances that brought mammoths and sloths to past extinctions
" " ranges as species
" " when humans first arrived in North America

I can accept conversation like "Yes, there isn't enough water to cover current land masses. Can we talk about rapid land mass formation?" more easily than I can accept "multiple assumptions in geology form a consistent body of dates for other assumed and/or real events".

I'm not a total idiot. I get ancient dating on catastrophes, geologic formations, cosmology, etc. I can see certain conflicts with the Flood story and modern geology. I do not think the contradictions are irreconcilable.

Posting illustrations and maps of past events on this thread makes it look as though you found ice age limits in Google Earth from satellite views taken months ago! Geology is exciting for the very reasons we're discussing, it is attempts to solve and come to reasonable conclusions on a myriad of past events.

 

[outhouse]

I do not think the contradictions are irreconcilable.

They factually are.

You have to provide a date for a flood, if you actually propose it took place in reality.


If I flood took place as described it would leave factual evidence to date it down to the year.


How would a culture that only started after 1200 BC, and were wiped out multiple times, possess details from thousands of years earlier?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not a total idiot. I get ancient dating on catastrophes, geologic formations, cosmology, etc. I can see certain conflicts with the Flood story and modern geology. I do not think the contradictions are irreconcilable.

But for what purpose? Why stick to a story that doesn't have support in geology only for the purpose of sticking to the story? And also, you have admitted to not reading other parts in the Bible literally, so why take the story literally?

My view is that I do think the story was based on a real event, however, it wasn't a global flood, but local, and his name wasn't Noah, and he didn't take all pairs of all species of the world either, but took his household, whatever he had and barely escaped a flood that destroyed his home and probably home city. We do have geological evidence of local floods in those areas. Some even larger than usual, so a massive local flood where only a handful of people managed to escape, that's a possible story.

 

[outhouse]

My view is that I do think the story was based on a real event, however, it wasn't a global flood, but local, and his name wasn't Noah, and he didn't take all pairs of all species of the world either, but took his household, whatever he had and barely escaped a flood that destroyed his home and probably home city. We do have geological evidence of local floods in those areas. Some even larger than usual, so a massive local flood where only a handful of people managed to escape, that's a possible story

And this is what science and historians see. And 9ball ignores completely

The Euphrates overflowed in 2900BC the flood is attested to this time with a factual degree of certainty. Hence the term attested.

Ziusudra is said to have gone down the swollen river on a barge loaded with farm animals and goods and landed next to a hill and made an animal sacrifice. This took place a few hundred years later we get this flood mythology. King Ziusudra is on a known kinds list, and these barges were quite common, and the flood actually took place.

Not long after Akkadians have their river flood mythology.

Long after we have Babylonians who turn this epic into a seal deluge in their mythology.


Long after that, the Israelites formed and turned this epic into a global deluge.


There is no credible argument against what I have posted.

 

[gnostic]

All,

I'm sorry to disagree, but you are making some circular statements and assumptive statements. Example, and please take this in the kind spirit in which it is intended:



Assumptions in that bit alone include:

We know with certainty when Meteor Crater was formed
" " how Meteor Crater was formed
" " all the circumstances that brought mammoths and sloths to past extinctions
" " ranges as species
" " when humans first arrived in North America

I can accept conversation like "Yes, there isn't enough water to cover current land masses. Can we talk about rapid land mass formation?" more easily than I can accept "multiple assumptions in geology form a consistent body of dates for other assumed and/or real events".

I'm not a total idiot. I get ancient dating on catastrophes, geologic formations, cosmology, etc. I can see certain conflicts with the Flood story and modern geology. I do not think the contradictions are irreconcilable.

Posting illustrations and maps of past events on this thread makes it look as though you found ice age limits in Google Earth from satellite views taken months ago! Geology is exciting for the very reasons we're discussing, it is attempts to solve and come to reasonable conclusions on a myriad of past events.

Except that the geological evidences are not circular reasoning.

Those who deny geological evidences, simply don't understand geology and stratigraphy...or they don't want to understand it because it conflict with their so-called scriptures.

Genesis does say global flood, and said to have cover the highest mountains, and every living things, other than those that were aboard survive. There is no getting around what the bible say.

Like you have said there are enough water in the world to cover the entire the earth, including the highest mountains.

And if there were such a global flood, then there should be geological and archaeological evidences found everywhere AT EXACTLY ONE POINT IN TIME...

Such a catastrophic event would point to date of when that happened, and that didn't happen.

If such event took place, there would be also evidence that all animals originate from mount Ararat. You could track their movements, by the animals dying, during their journeys away from mt Ararat. Slow-moving animals like wombats and kolas would have taken millennia to reach Australia, if they somehow escape from predators in their journey...which is highly unlikely, don't you think?

And there have been no evidences that wombats and kolas ever living in Eurasian continent.