Noah's children

[Falconius]

"A world map of the distribution of this frozen soil and muck reveals several very interesting things, the most outstanding aspect being that it lies low, on level plains or tablelands. Unless it was caused by some cosmic forces that we have not yet detected, it would appear to be a subaerial [flood] deposit derived from massive erosion of higher grounds and with steeper slopes. However, its depth in some places, and over enormous areas, has always caused even the most open-minded geologists to boggle. The Russians, who own the major land areas covered by this substance, have conducted prolonged studies on it for half a century and have, in some places, drilled down to over 4,000 feet, but still without reaching solid rock. The conundrum is, of course, [H]ow do you get that thickness of what is manifestly surface-derived material if it is the result of run-off?"

Quoted from "Much About Muck," Pursuit 2 (October, 1969): 68-69

"Similar evidence is forthcoming from the deposits where the Mammoths' remains occur further inland, and where we find marine shells which [give] evidence [of] the former presence of the ocean. This was known to Pallas, and has been confirmed amply by Middendorf and others. Thus, [Pallas] describes the occurrence near Ust Tatarskoi on the Irtish of numerous shells, mostly fossilized, but others preserving their horny pellicles, and, in some cases, retaining traces of the mollusk itself. In the same layers were found the bones of elephants and many other animals. [He adds,] "This undoubtedly...has come from a great inundation...." Pallas, himself, found several remains of both elephants and buffaloes (bison and musk sheep?) in situ, and also heads of great fishes.... "

Quoted from Ibid., p. 188

"According to James Trifil, some 243 fossilized whale skeletons and loose bones were discovered in a large valley 150 miles southwest of Cairo (100 miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea and more than 200 miles from the Red Sea). These skeletons are of Zeuglodon whales, like those found all over the southeastern United States. The Egyptian whale bones were scattered among the sand dunes; when the wind exposed them, the paleontologists rapidly dug out as much of the fossilized whale as possible because windborne sand erodes exposed bones."

Quoted from James Trifil, "Whale Feet," Discover (May, 1991): 45-48

Hope you don't take it as me throwing the book at you, but i can provide more facts if that is required. :-X

[sneezer3]

Acriku- When the flood happend it all came by rain :P

And the sphinx. Well there is no proff that it has been around for that long. One of those websites assumes a lot on the builders of the sphinx. ::)

That belongs to history. And of course you can find history in the Bible! The Old Testament, among other things, records the history of the Hebrews! When I said "science" I meant things like physics, astronomy, geography, etc. Disciplines that relate to the natural world, not to human affairs.

I know. but most the time histoicly would be on the list of astronomy, geography.

There are some more i'm gonna try to find them before this thread close's down.

If its done gone i'l IM them to you ;D

The bible has been proven Right histoicly, geographyly, and astronomicly.

Coincidences. Based on very vague Bible verses. For example, "paths of the sea" doesn't necessarely have to mean sea currents. It can be interpreted a number of ways.

It is not a "Coincidence". He already thought there might be currents. The bible renforced the idea. Then's when he though he'd have a look.

What kind of a Christian are you if you don't even belive the bible has any science in it. ::)

Can you show me sciencetifly how it don't have any science in it? ;D

[Edric O]

The bible has been proven Right histoicly, geographyly, and astronomicly.

You don't understand what I'm saying, do you? I never claimed that the Bible was wrong! Of course it's not wrong! All I'm saying is that the Bible simply does not give us information in matters of science. The Bible is not a science book. It handles more important matters than knowledge. It is meant to heal the soul.

What kind of a Christian are you if you don't even belive the bible has any science in it.

Read above. Jesus Christ came to our world to Save us and teach us to be closer to God, not to tell us how to build a nuclear reactor! Besides, His knowledge is far beyond our understanding.

[Anathema]

I met this religious guy the other day...he claimed dinosaurs never existed. Rofl. He didn't gave any explanation for the fossils or anything.

[sneezer3]

You don't understand what I'm saying, do you? I never claimed that the Bible was wrong! Of course it's not wrong! All I'm saying is that the Bible simply does not give us information in matters of science. The Bible is not a science book. It handles more important matters than knowledge. It is meant to heal the soul.

The way i understood it you where saying the bible has no science in it. It might not tell us how to make a nuclear reactor. But like you just pointed out. His knowledge is far beyond our understanding. Like the example i gave The science that is in there in the is true. Rather we found it out yet or not. And yes there is science in that book.

All I'm saying is that the Bible simply does not give us information in matters of science. The Bible is not a science book. It handles more important matters than knowledge. It is meant to heal the soul.

Ok. i misunderstood you then. :)

Yes gives us some information. And yes it is more about healing the soul. then science. in fact its all about the soul. all i'm trying to say is there is science in it. Like you said

His knowledge is far beyond our understanding.

all i'm saying is it has science in it and what that's in it is right. it has been proven right sciencetificly a lot of times people when people pointed there finger at it and said it was wrong.

[Acriku]

No that's good Default that you brought that information, now my answer to that is that you are getting information that suggests 'a' flood, but not 'the' flood. There have been floods all over the world and some huge. But it still does not suggest a worldwide flood.

sneezer, of course the flood was by rain, but in sub-tropical climates such as Egypt was in after the last ice age, it rained hard and well. That is why monuments around the Sphinx are not eroded vertically, much like the body of the Sphinx, since they were built a long time after the Sphinx.

Check out these two links, a very interesting read:

http://dreamwater.org/lovecenter/article/sphinx1.htm

http://dreamwater.org/lovecenter/article/sphinx2.htm

[Falconius]

i am able to provide more quotes but those that i've made so far need some elaboration.

The first quote:

The article refer to a global picture, not local. It deals with muck filled to great depth with Pleistocene animals and smashed forests. This means it all happened during the same (Pleistocene) era. This flood deposit are on the northernmost reaches of the northern continents around the Arctic Ocean -> a very enormous area.

The article about the whale also mention that the same species of whale's fossils was found deep inland on two continents, Africa and North America. This would place the flooding of these continents in the same era.

About the Zeuglodon whale:

They were from fifty-five to seventy-five feet long and had a skull a up to five feet long. The remains of hind leg bones are also visible on the skeleton like on other whales. They had a sea-serpent like apearance prompting speculation that the Zeuglodon might still exist in lakes like Loch Ness and Lake Champlain as their famous monsters. This is not all impossible, since the Coelacanth, a primitive fish thought to be extinct for 65 million years, showed up off the coast of South Africa in 1938. But one has to admit that the enormity of the sea vs these lakes does limit this possibility.

Altough there are more information indicating a global flood event, i have to admit -> i cannot find scientific proof of such a flood during Noah's time. Perhaps that flood event was local and not global. So you are right Acriku- if you say my info suggest 'a' flood. i have more info that prove it to have been global. But not 'the' flood. i can almost quote myself.

Thus there are reasonable scientific proof that the Biblical type flood is possible.

[Digital Guerrilla]

If the flood was local and not global how come when Noah sent the dove (Genesis 8:9) to find land it could not. If a local flood was the case the dove when released would just keep flying until it found land and returned to the Ark with evidence. Noah and his family were in the Ark for 53 weeks (Genesis 8:14) a whole year that is a long time to be in the Ark for just a local flood. Both Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) use words to describe Noah's flood which are different than the ordinary words for flood. In this way, Noah's flood was represented as a totally unique occurrence. [Hebrew / "Mabbool" - Greek / "Kataklusmos" (cataclysm)]. If the Flood were merely local, God could have sent them to a safer part of the world. God warned Noah about the Flood 120 years prior to its start. Noah and his family could have traveled a great distance in that time. Something else to think about Naoh's ark was huge (Genesis 6:14-16) why would it have be to so big if it was just local?

[Acriku]

You can't prove the Noah's story with the story ;)

[Digital Guerrilla]

Why not Acriku the story supposts itself. ;D And based apon what is being said the story is arguing for itself.

[Acriku]

The arguments are centered around what is brought to us by this story, and about the proof outside of the story. Details within the story remain within the story as part of the story and not outside the story as proof of the story ;)

[TMA_1]

You cant prove most of what the bible says because its based on faith. Arguments wont help anything. Not even huge posts. Looking at you edric ;)

[Acriku]

You might not be able to prove most of it, but you can disprove any of it, if it were false. It's just a matter of resources and time.

[sneezer3]

You might not be able to prove most of it, but you can disprove any of it, if it were false. It's just a matter of resources and time.

It depends on who your are trying to disprove it to. and who you are talking to. and what story. btw I din't say anything to what you said earlyer much has what you brung up was a little over my head.

I could attack a lot of stuff about eveloshion. there are a lota holes in it. It's easyer to attack the bible then it is to defend it. But i'l look for anything i know about and can answer.

[Acriku]

Take your time sneezer if you need it, and yes there are many holes in evolution, that's perefectly alright for a science that doesn't claim absolutability. It's a working science, probably filling in many holes as time goes on, and also making new ones as time goes on.

The story I was talking about in the above few posts was the Noah's Flood story, with the dove etc. Also it's evolution, not eveloshion (sounds dutch or something lol)

[sneezer3]

I looked at the links you provided. From what i can tell they give more evedence of the flood

Before you think i've lost it let me quote some of the stuff.

A good explanation for this is the following. The last heavy rainfall that was in Egypt and could have caused the body to erode in the way it has was about 12.000 years ago, just after the last ice age. Egypt was then in a sub-tropical climate (with all the monsoons that come along with that climate) and when the north pole shifted from North America to its current position the poles started to melt and caused floods and Egypt became a desert and all jungles were replaced by endless dunes of sand

It also assumed a lot on the builders of it. Now from what i can tell that could have also been before the flood.

Do not forget that they could have built it after the flood then a lot of Regulur rain came Then it eroded away. that could happen

[Acriku]

That could not happen. For the basin to have eroded away like that would take hard continuous rainfalls in which the climate and environment of Egypt cannot sustain. Impossible. And I don't see how what you wrote says anything about proving the Flood since all you say is this could have happened before and this could have happened after, etc.

[sneezer3]

That could not happen. For the basin to have eroded away like that would take hard continuous rainfalls in which the climate and environment of Egypt cannot sustain. Impossible. And I don't see how what you wrote says anything about proving the Flood since all you say is this could have happened before and this could have happened after, etc.

The subject at the moment is proveing you wrong about the flood not happening. And you assume all of this somehow makes the flood not be true automaticly. Therefore you can't jump on me for assumeing this was before the flood.

Written on that stone is a story about a dream that Khafre had. He slept on the place where now the stone is and he dreamt he had to dig up the body so he would become pharaoh. This is the only evidence on which Egyptologists base their theories about the builder of the sphinx.) So it almost seems that the head is not supposed to be on that particular body. The following evidence strengthens this argument. The body shows (next to sand and wind erosion) very obvious signs of water erosion and in particular erosion by extremely heavy rainfall (confirmed by many geologists). This is rather peculiar because rain in Egypt is very rare and can in no way cause such damage to solid rock, not even over a time span of about 4.500 years

It assumes a lot about the builders if this was before the flood also keep in mind they would worship a lot of idels. Since they where so wicked.

[Acriku]

I don't believe it to not be true automatically, I know it not to be true ;) The story ever reeking of the fowl stench of truth need never find my nose, or anyone else's, because there exists none such a smell. The story is too rediculous to be true, and if it is false then that explains why.

That paragraph about how Khafre built the Sphinx is from the orthodox egyptologists, not the egyptologists like James West, and the more modern that believe the Sphinx was built 12,000 years ago. So the assumptions fall on the orthodox egyptologists. And so what if they worshipped idols? Egypt worshipped idols after the flood, what does that prove?

[sneezer3]

In case if you din't hear me even that i said it twice already. It assumes a lot about the builders.

Ok. so what if that is about the idols after the flood. That proves nothing. But still it could have eroded if it was made before the flood.

Well. if you don't belive it then i can't help you. and theres not much point in argueing is there? your just going to keep on pointing your finger at something else. At some other story. like most evolutionests do. <Example of what has been proven wrong time and time again. http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp>

[Acriku]

I am not pointing my finger at something else, you guys have brought your "facts" and I have tried my best to disprove them. Or atleast explain my side of the story. It doesn't matter whether or not we can prove or disprove eachother, it is the purpose of discussion, to inform ourselves and others what each side of the discussion is all about, and what we believe and disbelieve. It isn't about winning or losing, but about discussing.