Re: The Global Flood

On Oct 31, 3:44 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rnorman wrote:
On Oct 30, 2:32 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rnorman wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:24 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rnorman wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:19 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip nonsense for the sake of retaining some semblance of sanity>

First, your entire argument hinges on not accepting the fact that
the bible has the earth being watered by mist and not rain; and,
that the bible mentions 'fountains' of the deep opening up. Which
clearly shows having additional available water from underground
sources. Enough to compensate for the already lower sea level for
sure. These water sources are still with us today. Don't believe
me? Let's take a look:

"A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made
the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping diminishing deep in
the Earth's mantle and has revealed the existence of an
underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic
Ocean."

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8222.html

How about that old chum? There is water deep in the Earth's
mantle (even today) the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

In addition,

If you do not believe the earth could support that kind of water
underground, then read up on things like Cambrian-Vendian
aquifer, "Beijing anomaly", buried valleys and salt water under
the ground. Here is one link to get you started:

http://www.geo.lt/litosfera/n4A/n4A_18.htm

NEXT, You further assume there were no additional catastrophes
taking place prior to Noah's flood. The weight of the shifting
glacial ice as it melted would be enough to cause earthquakes,
perhaps set off volcano's, and I am sure do some continent
cracking and shifting.(there by making a pathway for under
ground water to get to the surface).

Ice, and water in particular, is the greatest destructive force
on the planet next only to fire and then wind. Moving glaciers
have been known to carve track marks through granite rock as if
it were butter, even reshape mountain ranges.

"A batholith is a large exposed body of granite that is left
exposed at the surface of the ground. In some cases the area of
exposed granite may have been ground down and flattened, most
likely due to glacial weathering. However, in the case of the
Bitterroot Mountains a very large mountain range was formed. The
Bitterroot Region has been affected by glacial weather, but
instead of destroying the mountains it has only made them even
more spectacular."

http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/students/bitter/bitterroot.htm

Last, you claim the rate was not constant. Not only was the rate
constant, it was rapid as eye witnessed accounts state. It does
not take much common sense to realize that a continent shift
would cause tsunamis along with this release of underground
water. Not to mention the sudden climate change. Remember, that
the earth was watered by a mist before the flood. Now during the
flood it is reported to rain. That equals a drastic and sudden
atmospheric change on earth. One of biblical proportions.

One look at the destruction of a small underground earth quake in
Sir Lanka is evidence that many such earthquakes happening
simultaneously around the world would cause.

All in all, when you add it all up, I would say you are in denial
of the biblical flood being a real possibility.

I make no assumptions of mist vs. waters of the deep vs whatever.
I simply say that there does not exist enough water to flood the
entire earth to a level somewhere up Mt. Ararat, to flood the
earth sufficiently to kill virtually every living human except a
favored and protected handful, to cause a rise in the water level
sudden enough to cause massive loss of life in a global way. I
have repeatedly emphasized that local disasters are common.

The Noah Flood WAS a regional flood. But if the waters got that
high there, then there was probably flooding occuring ALL over the
world with respect to the same elevations.

I have told you this before. You are simply too stubborn to review
any information that does not fit into that tiny small mind of
yours.

Midrash:
"The deluge in the time of Noah was by no means the only flood with
which this earth was visited. The first flood did its work of
destruction as far as Jaffé, and the one of Noah's days extended to
Barbary.--Gen. Rabba 23." I have said countless times that the Noah
flood reached from Barbary to the coastal areas of India. It was a
flood happening all over the world impacting the same elevations

Look at the areas of Iraq in green on this map and you will see how
an enormous flood could span through the country's river and stream
systems all the way to the foot hills between Turkey and Iran.

http://www.freeworldmaps.net/asia/iraq/map.html

These include
earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, cyclones-hurricanes-typhoons, all
sorts of disasters. These can kill very large numbers of people.
Modern flooding still kills large numbers. I have repeated
emphasized that a major local but extremely large and devastating
natural disaster could be the source of various flood legends; a
separate major local event for each independent legend. Nothing
you say provides even the slightest bit of evidence for one single
global event that devasted all of humankind. That is what the
biblical flood is all about. The biblical flood is NOT about a
local flood that killed a whole bunch of people.

You talk about massive quantities of underground water. What you
describe in nowhere even near the amount needed to cover the
surface of the earth to a depth of tens of thousands of feet,

What I showed you was some of the water underground now. Look at
today's current sea levels and you will find more water then was
there thousands of years ago. This water came from under ground
sources as well as from the polar regions. The bible is clear. "The
fountains of the deep" broke open releasing this additional water.

< the amount

needed to produce a literal Noah's flood. What you describe could
in no possible way (except goddidit magic) rise at the rate
described in the bible and then recede at that rate. Look at the
rate of water level rise after the construction of the Three
Gorges Dam (Yangtse River, China) or the Aswan Dam (Nile River,
Egypt) or the Hoover Dam (Colorado River, USA). In China the
water level rose several hundred feet in just a few years
displacing millions of people. How many drowned in the sudden
rise in level? Exactly zero.

I hardly call a few years the same as 40 days. Or ice melt in one
spot on the planet comparatable to all of the polar ice caps
melting and underground water bursting forth.

The people in china also had time to react. Pepare.

How much of the

earth's surface was devastated by that rise of hundreds of feet in
water level? A very tiny and insignificant amount. Very
significant to the millions who lived there but totally
insignificant in global impact.

Then you admit that Noah's flood could leave very little evidence
but could have happen. Thank you.

The impact of Noah's flood killed many via drowning because of the
quickness of the event. But there was secondary deaths just as we
see after any flooding, even after hurricanes. Things such as
disease, broken bones and other health problems. Then came the long
term effects such as crops ruined, food shortages, etc..

But to you. This is a minor detail.

In China there was time to react. There was a government with
recourses. The people of Noah's day had neither. Many died. The
story was told despite the embellishments. You deny it.

You are simply so ignorant of science and the type of thinking
necessary to ponder the full implications of a truly global flood
that you become impressed with little details that seem to
corroborate your fantastical notions, not realizing how completely
inappropriate your analysis is. Your references to batholiths and
the erosive power of water and glaciers and continental drift is
evidence of this interpretation.

Actually this describes you to a TEE. You are bias and utterly
refuse to accept that:

1) there was enough water
2) the flood actually happened
3) people wrote about it
4) there was no reason for these people to lie
4) there are cultures found in that area via archeology that have
simply vanished but their pottery remained
5) it was a world wide event as ancient tradition shows

Clearly I have shown you water under the ground, that exist today
that is the size of an ocean and in just one place.

There was obviously much more underground at one time. Add that to
the ice melt, and add a major catastrophe brought on by divinity
and what do you get? A flood of biblical proportions.

Get over it.

1) There is enough water to cause local floods. There is not enough
water to cause a global flood except for the post-glacial ice melt.

Exactly. A catastrophic event that melted the ice quickly.

The post-glacial ice melt did not "cover the earth", it merely covered
the area now several hundred feet below sea level leaving all of
today's terrestrial environment intact.  Others have already pointed
out the physical impossibility of a rapid ice melt unless you posit
"goddidit" plus "goddidit in such a way that leaves no evidence for
modern science to confirm and leaves an enormity of evidency for
modern science to deny such an event".

The ice covered massive amounts of the earths surface. As far south as
England, and more then 1/2 the United States. You should brush up on the
subject.



But let's humor you for a while.  Suppose the Noah flood in the bible
is a remnant of glacial ice-melt, plus other very large but local
disasters.  What does that mean for the literal truth of the bible?
Is the bible something to be accepted literally or is a work that must
be interpreted because the stories are not literal representations of
actual events but rather mythical works and legends containing aspects
of basic truths but only if you understand them in the right way?  If
you say the latter, I already acknowledged we have no argument.  Do
you insist on a literal reading of the bible?  Yes or no.  Plain and
simple.

You write more then one hundred words with three questions, then ask for a
yes or no answer?

Dishonest to say the least. Let me know when you want honest answers.



I do not.  I find the tales, especially those in the first five books,
to be myth and legend with a clear purpose in serving the needs of the
religious, political, and economic establishment for one particular
group of people living some 2500 years ago (3000 to 2000).  I find no
association with real events until possibly the stories of David and
Solomon or, more likely, to even later events.  Even so, the later
histories and writings contain highly elaborated "historic truths"
with an obvious revisionist slant for religious, political, and
socioeconomic purposes.  The whole thing, incidentally, was written by
humans for humans.  What is your view of the work?  I have been open,
honest and frank.  Can you respond in kind?

Sure. I can and will respond in kind.

To a degree you are correct. IMO the bible is an synopsis of a much greater
body of work that served the needs of the religious, political, and economic
establishment for one particular group of people. And that one people being
the Hebrews.

For that reason much of the bible does not make sense to us; with improper
translation of exact word meanings being another reason it does not make
sense. IOW the bible offers bits of information regarding much broader
subjects, but some of it is misunderstood, even mistranslated. The bible
also seems to be made up of parts of oral tradition from many cultures.
Sumerian and Egyptian to name two.(which is not suprising since abraham was
from sumaria and moses was from egypt) So it takes a fluid ability to read
the bible and understand exactly what the bible is getting at. Because much
of the oral traditions and understandings are no longer with us. We have
lost (in time) the ability to fully understand, for instance, two sentences
in bible that needs two chapters worth of explanation. So a sincere study of
all other available information is warranted to get a full understanding of
what went on so long ago.

With that said, the bible can be used as a guide to truth. A guide through
history. And a glimpse into the future. The principals and information are
indeed a model for self government. And I think some American founding
fathers say this much regarding a self governing people. The hebrews were
supose to be a self governing people until they complained to Samual that
they wanted a King like the surronding nations.

But to be specific, yes, I do believe that the accounts written about in
books like genesis are based in some type of truth. The people were
recording (the best they could) events that actually happened. What possible
reason is there to lie? I base this opinion on oral traditions being similar
in that region and probably stemming from the same story. A story from a
much older time period. Perhaps even thousands of years prior.

Something regarding a Creator, a creation, a betrayal of that Creator with
offspring giants being the result of that betrayal and a subsequent
destruction of the corrupted-creation happened. These people were dead
serious when they wrote of these things. And I see no evidence at all that
these stories regarding creation are meant as a lie just to provide
religious, political, and economic establishment for one particular group of
people. Although the bible may have been used as such regarding the hebrews.
Because the original stories seem to stem from a culture much older then the
Hebrews. I have posted information regarding these pre-Sumerian post flood
peoples before.

So getting back to the flood; it was probably a very real, much worse then
we imagine event. Perhaps embellished. However, it is possible for such a
flood to have happened as i have outlined and to create the type of death
that was intended. And the intention was to rid the world of these giants
and their influence. If the flood did not kill all of them i am sure that
the aftermath would have as all food crops and many animals would have been
destroyed.

Some survived to write about what happened.


To take the trivial stuff first. Yes I asked three questions and I
also asked a
simple yes/no question.

You state clearly that the text of the bible is NOT meant to be
interpreted literally but must be understood in context of the times
and the historical background of the societies in which the authors
lived and the historical and cultural context they received from their
ancestors. What now remains is simply a difference of opinion. I
think your interpretations of how to interpret the bible are far off
course, that they have virtually nothing except highly selected pieces
of ancient text to support them where my interpreations of how to
interpret the bible are in complete agreement with virtually all
biblical scholars, all those that is who are not fundamentalists who
insist on a literal reading. The reason I claim my interpretations
are in such agreement is not because I am so brilliant that they must
agree with me. No, it is simply that I derive most of my
interpretation from reading what biblical scholars have written.

No matter how many writings you find about "giants", I discount their
very existence, that there is absolutely no evidence for them unless
you are willing to argue that this is some really ancient legacy of
conflict between H. sapiens and H. neadertalis. That would have some
shred of credibility although you would have to argue that an oral
tradition could maintain itself for countless millenia before becoming
consolidated into written form. That is a very tough road to
traverse.

A lot of what you say actually makes very good sense. The problem is
that you push it to extremes -- ridiculous extremes in my opinion.
All the stuff going on here on talk.origins is because all we see of
your ideas is those extremes, not the reasonableness that ancient myth
may have some basis in particular (pre)historic events. That plus the
fact that you have adopted an exceptionally confrontational style of
posting. Of course you were confronted but that was originally
because of the extreme nature of your ideas, ideas with no confirming
physical evidence and substantial contrary physical evidence.

The problem with positing truth in myth is discerning which part of
myth is factual and which is not. That distinction cannot be derived
purely from the text sources but from objective independent physical
evidence for the events under consideration. That is the part where
we deviate strongly.


.

Loading