Of course, there have been regional/local floods. So let me understand, your scientific backing are myths and a press release for an ABC TV Special, which provided no new information when it aired?
Creationist child abusers close doors
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Of course, there have been regional/local floods. So let me understand, your scientific backing are myths and a press release for an ABC TV Special, which provided no new information when it aired?
I mocked your stupid post about the History Channel providing some support. The Ancient Aliens nonsense is not in line with anything I support. It's more to your standards of attempting to force the data to fit preconceived nonsense.
Auster
New member
Nope, my evidence is showing you that there have been physical floods in the past that more than meet the requirements to be metaphorically suitable for the bible. Other evidence would probably be showcasing the commonalities between all religions of the region and how they all record an ancient flood.
Im sorry I don't keep documents pertaining to biblical events in my back pocket. But this isn't about me. this is about you not even putting up a link in support of your . . . position.
Im sorry I don't keep documents pertaining to biblical events in my back pocket. But this isn't about me. this is about you not even putting up a link in support of your . . . position.
tekkychick
New member
While I wouldn't be surprised if some regional flood spawned some tales that morphed over the ages into the bible stories, that doesn't mean some god pissed a flood into existence and only saved one guy, his family, and a bunch of animals...
fairy tales over the years often stem from some actual event; but the reworking of them and the retelling of them usually embellish and change them.
fairy tales over the years often stem from some actual event; but the reworking of them and the retelling of them usually embellish and change them.
Metaphor is not enough for YEC and the nonsense from Answers in Genesis. They require a worldwide flood and then some wishful thinking on top of it.
Common myths are not scientific backing for anything.
tekkychick
New member
There is tons of evidence for evolution; for the world and the universe being a heckuva lot older than 4,000 years or whatever they say; that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist; etc etc etc
No evidence for a god-figure snapping her fingers and making things happen. If you have some, please give it. But warning - you might start sounding as deranged as PMP if you aren't careful
Auster
New member
Neither are empty words.
You believe we spawned from an asteroid launched from another planet with life that started from a comet launched from a planet with . . .
I'll believe some extra-dimensional creature (outside of space and time) created life and then a combination of things took place.
You believe we spawned from an asteroid launched from another planet with life that started from a comet launched from a planet with . . .
I'll believe some extra-dimensional creature (outside of space and time) created life and then a combination of things took place.
You believe the whole of mankind, except for Noah and his family, were destroyed by the Biblical flood, and in the short time between Noah and modern day humans, populated the continents?
Precisely, there is a bit of truth in every mythos.
Auster
New member
Nope. I believe the bible is a metaphorical work and God is an intangible force.
But *we* cant disprove that the flood happened or we are all descendants of one man.
You are allowed your belief, but don't claim it is based on anything but faith.
25 million year old sheets of ice at the poles.
Auster
New member
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=25+million+year+old+sheets+of+ice+at+the+poles
No offense, I'm just failing to find any pertinent information. Well, 2 quite flamey sites.
Adding the words flood, moses, and bible do not help much . . .
No offense, I'm just failing to find any pertinent information. Well, 2 quite flamey sites.
Adding the words flood, moses, and bible do not help much . . .
No, I don't. Your fellow dumbass insisted that paper was scientifically proven (but then contradicted it when it proved troublesome), not me.
Isn't it convenient how the revealed TRUTH of your science fiction fairy tale became the dominant myth in the culture you happened to be born into. It is almost like it was meant to be.
First one Lake Vostok....
The lake was drilled into by Russian scientists in 2012. The overlying ice provides a continuous paleoclimatic record of 400,000 years, although the lake water itself may have been isolated for 15 [7][8] to 25 million years.[9] On 5 February 2012, a team of Russian scientists claimed to have completed the longest ever ice core of 3,768 m (12,400 ft) and pierced the ice shield to the surface of the lake.[10] As soon as the ice was pierced, water from the underlying lake gushed up the borehole.[11]
The first core of freshly frozen lake ice was obtained on 10 January 2013 at a depth of 3,406 m (11,175 ft),[12] and it is yet to be analyzed.[13] The Russian team plans to lower a probe into the lake to collect water samples and sediments from the bottom. It is hypothesized that unusual forms of life could be found in the lake's liquid layer, a fossil water reserve. Lake Vostok contains an environment sealed off below the ice for millions of years, in conditions which could resemble those of the hypothesized ice-covered ocean of Jupiter's moon Europa.[14][15]
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/CDcourses_investigate_climate.html
This ice layer can become quite deep over time; the 25 million year old East Antarctic Ice Sheet is more than 4.5 kilometers thick in places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene
There is evidence from oxygen isotopes at Deep Sea Drilling Program sites that ice began to build up in Antarctica about 36 Ma during the Eocene. Further marked decreases in temperature during the Middle Miocene at 15 Ma probably reflect increased ice growth in Antarctica. It can therefore be assumed that East Antarctica had some glaciers during the early to mid Miocene (23–15 Ma). Oceans cooled partly due to the formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, and about 15 million years ago the ice cap in the southern hemisphere started to grow to its present form. The Greenland ice cap developed later, in the Middle Pliocene time, about 3 million years ago.
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=192&cookieConsent=A
Arctic ice may have formed 20 million years earlier than previously thought
5 October 2008
Geologists have long debated when the poles first started icing over. Most think that Antarctica saw ice vastly earlier than the Arctic.
But, research reported in Nature suggests that previous estimates for exactly when the northern hemisphere first glimpsed ice could be out by around 20 million years.
Scientists usually compare the ratio of the two main oxygen isotopes - heavy oxygen and ordinary oxygen - in the remains of single-celled marine organisms in ocean sediments to find out when ice sheets formed. Geologists think two things determine this ratio: the amount of ice at the poles and temperature. Using this approach to look at the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the shells of marine organisms, scientists can figure out when ice sheets started emerging.
North south divide
Researchers discovered long ago that Antarctica started freezing over around 34 million years ago. And until now most scientists thought that the northern hemisphere started freezing around 31 million years later - just three million years ago.
Recently scientists have questioned this view, because other evidence points to the northern hemisphere icing over much earlier. Some scientists think that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere holds the key to controlling the timing of ice sheet formation.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/CDcourses_investigate_climate.html
Yes, we can.
Auster
New member
I guess I missed that science classYour links, while interesting, do not say anything about the floods. Perhaps that's your point, but it makes poor proof.
Your links, while interesting, do not say anything about the floods. Perhaps that's your point, but it makes poor proof.
They all say something about the age of the ice.