Noahs Ark

[Arlanbb]

I am not sure where you are getting the knowledge that the earth got drier. I have never read any reports where Lionne Thompson says that at all. I suggest you go back and reread Thompson's report start @ paragraph # 9: "Study of tree rings....when the tree rings were narrowest - SUGGESTING THE DRIEST PERIOD WAS APPROXMATLY 5,200 YEARS AGO" which is @ 3,200BC as I said. Also go to paragraph # 11 where Thompson says that because of the dramatic change of the weather the "SAHARA DESERT GOES FROM A HABITABLE REGION TO A BARREN DESERT." 3,200BC which is what I said.
In fact he suggests something similar to our current climate. Please give which paragraph he says that in in the reference you and I are reading. If he did say that then he is contradicting what he said in Paragraph's 9 and 11.
For most part Lonnie Thompson is a glaciologists, his reports pertain to this matter. The most striking part of his evidence is the quickness that plants were frozen, nearly instantaneously or snap frozen. The so called "Snap frozen" is far from a Warm Ocean happening. I have never seen anywhere where he even relates directly to the middle east. Albeit a dramatic climate change will have some form of impact on the rest of the world. This is still under investigation.

I am not sure what planet you are living on, many christians world wide hold a range of associations to this biblical story. Our scientific knowledge of (base) ancient cultures supports every one of them. This paragraph doesn't say much to me, maybe it is me but would you Please explain what you mean by "supports every one of them" and define what you mean by " a range of associations"? Maybe then I will know what you are driving at.

I would suggest it doesn't pose a big problem to Christianity, it only poses a big problem to your belief and your association patterns. Unless you believe you were either Adam or Eve, I further suggest that how your brain relates, may be considerably different to how the brains of Adam and Eve related. :yes: So any personal reason you may come up with yourself is basically irrelevant, albeit as good a guess as anybody elses on this matter.The information I have given to you is NOT GUESS WORK it is from archaeology research.

There are many ways (base) ancient cultures relate to the beginning. A good start is trying to identify the time period it was alledged to have happened in. What your belief patterns tell you are also irrelevant, albeit relevant to your own beliefs.

By the way, your archeological evidence has no basis pertaining to base cultures such as the Australian Aboriginal nor the African Bushman. I too have been through the areas you have mentioned and studied the cultures. I further have knowledge that when something was written doesn't necessarily equate to when it happened. I agree with that statement. Basically speaking the Sumerian people were of the same heritage, Are you saying the Hebrew people are of the same "SAME HERITAGE" as the Sumerian people? Please give me proof of that statement. I don't want speculation.
so it is not surprising to find they have the same or similar story in their ancestory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[footprints]

suggest you go back and reread Thompson's report start @ paragraph # 9: "Study of tree rings....when the tree rings were narrowest - SUGGESTING THE DRIEST PERIOD WAS APPROXMATLY 5,200 YEARS AGO" which is @ 3,200BC as I said. Also go to paragraph # 11 where Thompson says that because of the dramatic change of the weather the "SAHARA DESERT GOES FROM A HABITABLE REGION TO A BARREN DESERT." 3,200BC which is what I said.

LOL let us say we start the report at the beginning.

What this paragraph says is that tree rings in Ireland and England were narrower. Suggesting for this part of the earth, it had become drier. Hence the climate change is given more support for being global.

As for the Sahara most geolical records show this change was over by that stage, in the evidence offered by penguin, over by a good 200 years. Albeit what it may suggest, is that we had evidence of this happening, well before it happened as the evidence suggests it commenced some 7000 years ago.

Please give which paragraph he says that in in the reference you and I are reading. If he did say that then he is contradicting what he said in Paragraph's 9 and 11.

Please refer to paragraph one :

[/quote]COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Glaciologist Lonnie Thompson worries that he may have found clues that show history repeating itself, and if he is right, the result could have important implications to modern society. [/quote]

And the last paragraph and line:

[/quote]“Any prudent person would agree that we don’t yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don’t, we should be extremely cautious in how much we ‘tweak’ the system,” he said.

“The evidence is clear that a major climate change is underway.” [/quote]

The so called "Snap frozen" is far from a Warm Ocean happening.

Not really, water temperature has a dramatic influence on our weather patterns. People used to laugh at El nino, they don't anymore. We know that warm ocean currents effects the atmosphere, this makes some areas drier and some areas wetter. As the atmosphere changes so does irratic weather patterns.

This paragraph doesn't say much to me, maybe it is me but would you Please explain what you mean by "supports every one of them" and define what you mean by " a range of associations"? Maybe then I will know what you are driving at.

Not all Christians believe in a literal World Wide Flood. Many believe the story is a metaphore. Many others believe it a perceptional based flood, that is a local flood that was percieved by the ancient culture as being a world wide flood, simply because their whole known world was under water. Other analogies, are that the story has been blown out of proportions over the years, and may just relate to a swollen river.

What it is means is, study of ancient cultures such as the Australian Aboriginal and the African Bushman, tells us that any of the above premises could be true, based on our knowledge of these ancient cultures.

The information I have given to you is NOT GUESS WORK it is from archaeology research.

I don't doubt that. Now do you understand that not all evidence supports your view, and that not all archaeologists support the same hypotheses.

Are you saying the Hebrew people are of the same "SAME HERITAGE" as the Sumerian people? Please give me proof of that statement. I don't want speculation.

There is dna evidence which shows this, albeit I couldn't find it on the internet. Further grants have been listed by Israel to further investigate this, findings should be available 2010 as it relates to the whole middle east, which could even suggest the Taliban in Afghanistan are and expelled tribe dating back some 2,500 years ago. Other evidence which supports this is the "out of africa," theory pertaining to the evolution of humans in africa and then migrating to the rest of the world from there. Where as evidence once suggested they were invaders, modern archaelogial records suggests continuence for a least 5000 years in southern Mesopotamia.

The encyclopaedia Britannica list this info:

The emergence of Mesopotamian civilization

The Late Neolithic Period and the Chalcolithic Period. Between about 10,000 bc and the genesis of large permanent settlements, the following stages of development are distinguishable, some of which run parallel: (1) the change to sedentary life, or the transition from continual or seasonal change of abode, characteristic of hunter-gatherers and the earliest cattle breeders, to life in one place over a period of several years or even permanently, (2) the transition from experimental plant cultivation to the deliberate and calculated farming of grains and leguminous plants, (3) the erection of houses and the associated “settlement” of the ... (100 of 47308 words)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hmmm, yes we do have suggested knowledge to indicate that.

Do we have suggested knowledge to conclude that 7,300 to 5,500 years is a couple of hundred years off, 5,200 years? Not that a thousand years difference makes a whole heap of difference in the bigger picture.

What about our knowledge of deserts? Are we really in possession of knowledge which says it never rains in any desert? Or that a desert cannot flood due to flash flooding effects generated by rain elsewhere in the area?

This notwithstanding, I have not even remotely suggested there wasn't a lead in period, and the same knowledge Lonnie Thompson is suggesting of todays environment.

The bible itself, from the best of my knowledge, doesn't even mention, whether the area this alleged flood pertains to, was fertile or desert. Even this knowledge would give us some insight as to the period in question. I mean, when knowledge of (base) ancient cultures is taken in consideration, we cannot even be sure of the exact location.

The information was just to show that the desert itself has been there for a very long time. You're welcome to speculate as much as you want about the Sahara Desert as you have above. Your question about rain makes no sense, since the article I provided (DOES) talk about there being monsoon rainfall there long time ago.


http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html

• 22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.

• 10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.

• 9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.

• 7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

We have enough information to (conclude) there was never a WWF in the past 10, 15 or even 30,000 years. In fact, as your posted evidence showed, we'd have to go back millions of years to show that there was massive worldwide geological flooding. The creationist here, where ever they have gone now, posit a young of about 14k years old and take the "Noah Deluge" literally. The evidence have and have had all along, probably before you and I were even born, was/is that there has been no event like this in the geological record in the time frame given to us by creationist.

 

[footprints]

The information was just to show that the desert itself has been there for a very long time. You're welcome to speculate as much as you want about the Sahara Desert as you have above. Your question about rain makes no sense, since the article I provided (DOES) talk about there being monsoon rainfall there long time ago.


Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | LiveScience

• 22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.

• 10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.

• 9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.

• 7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

We have enough information to (conclude) there was never a WWF in the past 10, 15 or even 30,000 years. In fact, as your posted evidence showed, we'd have to go back millions of years to show that there was massive worldwide geological flooding. The creationist here, where ever they have gone now, posit a young of about 14k years old and take the "Noah Deluge" literally. The evidence have and have had all along, probably before you and I were even born, was/is that there has been no event like this in the geological record in the time frame given to us by creationist.

Thanks penguin, Yes monsoon rains. Let us say that again, monsoon rains. Just for the hell of it, let us say it very slooooooly, monnnnnnnsooooooon rains.

Well that just proves it then, there is no way known to mankind, that monsoon rains can ever cause flooding. And, how preposterous, than monsoonal rains could have it raining for days and weeks on end. Hell if that were the case, some people may even consider this to be a wet season, or the rainy season.

And, let me just point out to you, that the information below is purely speculative. All that says at the moment is, that is all we can verify, not that this region was devoid of life. Based on the "Out of Africa," theory we can speculate that humans passed through that way thousands of years before hand. The Australian Aboriginal as just one example have been in Australia for 40,000+ years.

22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thanks penguin, Yes monsoon rains. Let us say that again, monsoon rains. Just for the hell of it, let us say it very slooooooly, monnnnnnnsooooooon rains.

Well that just proves it then, there is no way known to mankind, that monsoon rains can ever cause flooding. And, how preposterous, than monsoonal rains could have it raining for days and weeks on end. Hell if that were the case, some people may even consider this to be a wet season, or the rainy season.

And, let me just point out to you, that the information below is purely speculative. All that says at the moment is, that is all we can verify, not that this region was devoid of life. Based on the "Out of Africa," theory we can speculate that humans passed through that way thousands of years before hand. The Australian Aboriginal as just one example have been in Australia for 40,000+ years.

22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.

Well, before you went on your little rant fest you should have paid more close attention to the data. You harped on the first bullet in that list which is way out of the time line creationist give us for a WWF. Now. Observe the last bullet, which is closer to their time line, but still at least 2500 years outside the time line given.

Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | LiveScience
7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

So it's what I've been saying all along. When we observe the Egyptian history we see that they were living before, during and after the supposed flood. Geology shows it, Anthropology shows it as well as archeology. See, what we have is the start of the Egyptian dynasties 2500 to 3000 years *before* the supposed flood/Story. At the same time we have the Sumerian people with a thriving society.

I'm not sure why you and I are debating this non issue considering we both don't subscribe to the notion of a WWF.

 

[footprints]

So it's what I've been saying all along. When we observe the Egyptian history we see that they were living before, during and after the supposed flood. Geology shows it, Anthropology shows it as well as archeology. See, what we have is the start of the Egyptian dynasties 2500 to 3000 years *before* the supposed flood/Story. At the same time we have the Sumerian people with a thriving society.

I'm not sure why you and I are debating this non issue considering we both don't subscribe to the notion of a WWF.

Nobody knows when or even if any flood occurred. A waste of time offering evidence to support something unknown. It has no meaning to anybody.

I have never beeen discussing a literal, world wide flood.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A waste of time

:yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Nobody knows when or even if any flood occurred. A waste of time offering evidence to support something unknown. It has no meaning to anybody.

I have never beeen discussing a literal, world wide flood.

No....Creationist don't know.They just believe it happened because a book says it did so they take it literal.

"WE" know that it didn't happen. Especially NOT in the time line they have come up with. The fact that you're not talking about a WWF does not negate the fact that this is what the WHOLE thread has been about. So what you posit a local flood....That was suggested very early one before you came here. Creationist who take the story "literally" are not in agreement with you. You and I are arguing the same point and that is the waste of time.....

 

[footprints]

No....Creationist don't know.They just believe it happened because a book says it did so they take it literal.

"WE" know that it didn't happen. Especially NOT in the time line they have come up with. The fact that you're not talking about a WWF does not negate the fact that this is what the WHOLE thread has been about. So what you posit a local flood....That was suggested very early one before you came here. Creationist who take the story "literally" are not in agreement with you. You and I are arguing the same point and that is the waste of time.....

Many creationists support a local flood hypothesis, many support a metaphorical position, and many support a hypothesis based on a subliminal understanding of this story which only they are privy to.

I think what you mean to say, is the creationists which you have been discussing this with in here, or the creationists with whom you would generally discuss this matter with.

 

[darkendless]

Many creationists support a local flood hypothesis,

Thats the issue. How local and where exactly is local?

If there was a precise location it would take a drill a geologist and about 15 minutes to see what kind of "flooding" has occured.

However, the bible isn't exactly that specific on the issue so the myth lives on.

 

[footprints]

Thats the issue. How local and where exactly is local?

If there was a precise location it would take a drill a geologist and about 15 minutes to see what kind of "flooding" has occured.

However, the bible isn't exactly that specific on the issue so the myth lives on.

The bible is not supposed to be exact on this issue. The ancient people who would have developed this story and passed it word of mouth knew exactly what they were talking about, it is only us now who don't.

An example; Adam and Eve, if they existed, wouldn't have needed any evidence to prove Gods' existence. God per se, was their evidence.

If we knew of the exact location, the precise time, and exactly what type of flood we are talking about, we could go a long way to suggesting the truth of this matter, one way or the other. It is the lack of evidence and lack of knowledge which poses all the problems.

 

[skydivephil]

Lack of evdience is not the problem. We have good geoligical evidence for the history of the Earth, the roblem is it does not support thhe flood myth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Many creationists support a local flood hypothesis, many support a metaphorical position, and many support a hypothesis based on a subliminal understanding of this story which only they are privy to.

I think what you mean to say, is the creationists which you have been discussing this with in here, or the creationists with whom you would generally discuss this matter with.

Well I know what I've said. I have said all along we are only discussing the issue with those who take the story literally. You're pointing out something that has bee the case almost from the start of this thread. So far, in this thread, I have not come across a creationist that didn't take the story literally word for word. That in itself is the only thing I'm dealing with here.

 

[footprints]

Lack of evdience is not the problem. We have good geoligical evidence for the history of the Earth, the roblem is it does not support thhe flood myth.

I will concur it doesn't support one of the flood stories. This is a far cry from dismissing all theories based on this knowledge.

 

[skydivephil]

I will concur it doesn't support one of the flood stories. This is a far cry from dismissing all theories based on this knowledge.

what exactly do you want to hold onto? Certianly there is reason to believ early civilizations based themselves near rivers and when they flooded this may have seemed global to them. Tsunamis might also have played a part in the development of lood mythologies. But there is no evidence fo a global flood , so anyone that wants to hold onto a literal interpretation of the bibles flood story is being silly.

 

[footprints]

what exactly do you want to hold onto? Certianly there is reason to believ early civilizations based themselves near rivers and when they flooded this may have seemed global to them. Tsunamis might also have played a part in the development of lood mythologies. But there is no evidence fo a global flood , so anyone that wants to hold onto a literal interpretation of the bibles flood story is being silly.

I don't want you to hold on to anything, your own faith of belief will tell you what you have to hold on to.

The only person who has raised a global flood in our converstation is you.

Yes you are 100% correct there are many more possibilities which need to be looked into before this legend is completely passed to myth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If we knew of the exact location, the precise time, and exactly what type of flood we are talking about, we could go a long way to suggesting the truth of this matter, one way or the other. It is the lack of evidence and lack of knowledge which poses all the problems.

Bible chronology [2370 BC/BCE] and Genesis gives us the exact location, precise time and exactly what type of Flood. - Genesis 7:11,19,20; 8:3-5, 13,14

 

[Autodidact]

O.K. great. So why didn't any of the civilizations that kept written records during that period notice that they were underwater?

 

[McBell]

O.K. great. So why didn't any of the civilizations that kept written records during that period notice that they were underwater?

They did.
It's just that the heathens went through each and every one of those civilizations and destroyed all records that mentioned it in an attempt to convert Christians to their hell bound heathen ways.

 

[footprints]

Bible chronology [2370 BC/BCE] and Genesis gives us the exact location, precise time and exactly what type of Flood. - Genesis 7:11,19,20; 8:3-5, 13,14

The written word is a funny thing, it can be related to in many ways, and can be associated to many things. In the USA, with all the knowledge and resources behind the supreme court, the interpretation of the Bill of Rights as it pertains to the right to bear arms, split the judges on this panel. One set of judges thought that it meant one thing, and the other set of judges thought it meant something else.

The evidence you have offered here, may be right, then again it may be wrong. It may be partially correct, and it maybe partially wrong. And isn't that the real beauty in knowledge.