I just read a bit of the chapter on Noah's ark. I now have a question for the rigid believers amongst us.

I saw no mention of plants. Just creatures of flesh. How do you suppose plants survived a global flood.

I just read a bit of the chapter on Noah's ark. I now have a question for the rigid believers amongst us.

I saw no mention of plants. Just creatures of flesh. How do you suppose plants survived a global flood.


you know what i thought was funny is that the flood was apparently caused by 40 days and 40 nights of rain or whatever, yet in 1953 Seatlle had 33 consecutive days of rain with no cataclysmic flood, and just this past fall seatlle had 27 consecutive days of rainfall with similar results. is it that last week of rain that makes all the difference or what? maybe they should start crowding animals into big boats in the pacific northwest?

I just read a bit of the chapter on Noah's ark. I now have a question for the rigid believers amongst us.

I saw no mention of plants. Just creatures of flesh. How do you suppose plants survived a global flood.Seaweed - followed by an acceptable 6,000 years of evolution :D

Not only the plants.. what about the herbivores?

There is a great little book called Inummeracy by mathematician John Allen Paulos. The term inummeracy is the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy, and in the book Paulos discusses how many people have a poor grasp of mathematics and how this affects us as a culture.

Anyway I recall it because he mentions a calculation as to what the rainfall rates must have been in order for such a volume of water to swell up in such a time, as described in the bible, and finds that the pressure exerted by the rain would far exceed that which would sink any type of aircraft carrier or sea vessel ever built. :p

http://www.goma.demon.co.uk/yah/ark.gif

lerx,
Funny toon! I dig natty p also.

Some guy thinks he found noah's ark by looking at satelite photos:
http://www.space.com/news/060309_ark_update.html

I just read a bit of the chapter on Noah's ark. I now have a question for the rigid believers amongst us.

I saw no mention of plants. Just creatures of flesh. How do you suppose plants survived a global flood.


They supposedly came back from seeds.

Not only the plants.. what about the herbivores?

They supposedly lived off of plant debris that was scattered everywhere. Many plant cuttings will take root under the right conditions -- some much easier than others. It's real easy to start geraniums from a cutting.

lerx,
Funny toon! I dig natty p also.

Some guy thinks he found noah's ark by looking at satelite photos:
http://www.space.com/news/060309_ark_update.html

a clip from your web-site:

El-Baz recounted his conversations with former Apollo 15 moonwalker James Irwin. The astronaut, now deceased, mounted six expeditions to Mt. Ararat in a search for the ark. Those treks were done through his High Flight Foundation, a non-profit evangelical organization based in Colorado Springs.

"Irwin told me he saw something. He felt it was an imprint on the land of the boat that was turned upside downperhaps with some soil on top. So there was something there in his mind," El-Baz said.

I wonder why CIA photos of MT. Ararat are classified:


Meanwhile, Taylor anticipates that when QuickBird does produce the imagery goods, he'll have more leverage to convince U.S. President Bush and his administration to declassify those earlier Keyhole satellite shots.

Taylor may not have to wait too long.

Next month, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency unveils a load of vintage Keyhole-7 and Keyhole-9 pictures, declassifying the images and making them available for public scrutiny. He hopes Mt. Ararat photos are among those being released.

What's the big secret about a glacier covered mountain top?

They supposedly lived off of plant debris that was scattered everywhere. Many plant cuttings will take root under the right conditions -- some much easier than others. It's real easy to start geraniums from a cutting.

Underwater?

But salt water would surely kill many plants. Not to mention the amount of mud and silt which must have been making the waters turbid due to all that rain washing over the land.

Which also prompts me to ask: how did all the fish survive the flood? Especially the fresh-water fish which normally live in fresh-water lakes or rivers. What happened when the salt water flooded in, and they were all washed out to sea?

The Green Lantern "supposedly" charged his ring each day, but only if he recited an incantation.

They supposedly lived off of plant debris that was scattered everywhere. Many plant cuttings will take root under the right conditions -- some much easier than others. It's real easy to start geraniums from a cutting.

I meant while they were on the boat.

They supposedly came back from seeds.

1. I do not recall that it said Noah collected seed
2. if he didn't collect seed then only a limited percentage of plants is capable of regrowing from seed after flooding. Those are plants that are adapted to floodings or other harsh conditions.
3. If the whole world was flooded they would have covered the earth with salt water. This leaves the soil unusable for 99% of all plant life.
4. What did the animals eat when the plants were regrowing?

I think these 4 points refute the whole Noah's ark concept in a satisfactory manner. Not to mention all the other points raised before.

a clip from your web-site:



I wonder why CIA photos of MT. Ararat are classified:

What's the big secret about a glacier covered mountain top?


well, first of all, i bet CIA photos of MT. Ararat were classified more for the means by which they were taken then the content of the photos themselves.

also, in addition to that, didnt you just say they are declassifying a bunch of the photos? why would they be doing that if there was anything important in them. you think they had pictures of the ark and kept them classified all these years for some incomprehensible reason but now they are going to let them out and sing joy to the world with everybody when they see the ark in the photos...unlikely.
not only that, but what would the current US administration have to gain from keeping photos that in effect "prove" a bible story classified? dont you think they would want those out there for propoganda purposes, like say to persuade the muslims that our god is more real than theirs so our holy oil war against them is likely to succeed?
good government conspiracy theory though. can we do the JFK assassination next?

If all the water in all the clouds was suddenly on the ground, what would be the effects? How much water is that? Just curious.

If all the water in all the clouds was suddenly on the ground, what would be the effects? How much water is that? Just curious.

The bible said it had never rained - the world was watered like a terarium.
The mist came up from the ground and fell like dew in the night.
The world's atmosphere was saturated, and the axis to the sun was straight upright...perpendicular, parallel, whatever...
It was knocked of it's axis to it's current angle to the sun of 33 1/3 degrees.
That change in axis tilt caused the water in the atmosphere to cool and congeal into rain, all over the world at the same time for 40 days, covering the tallest mountains for one years.
At that time the new axis was established, the new poles began to acumulate snow and the water level went down as it was redistibuted again.

The bible said it had never rained - the world was watered like a terarium.


[4] For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

are you questioning God's word now???

I just read a bit of the chapter on Noah's ark. I now have a question for the rigid believers amongst us.

I saw no mention of plants. Just creatures of flesh. How do you suppose plants survived a global flood.

It was not a Global Flood thats why duhhh! it just most of the humans lived in the region that was flooded at the time, one humans lived outside that area. When it says Global it means more on a hypothetical term. Why are you trying to convert everyone to Atheism? why do you come and force this crap down everyone? why are you Atheist intolerant?

If it had never rained before, how did noah know what rain meant?

If it had never rained before, how did noah know what rain meant?

God told him, are you guys stupid or something? he was a man of god did what he willed I don't know why you Atheist have to push your agenda on everyone else. Just because you guys are too thick to comprehend god doesn't give you the right to make lie about god.

God told him, are you guys stupid or something? he was a man of god did what he willed I don't know why you Atheist have to push your agenda on everyone else. Just because you guys are too thick to comprehend god doesn't give you the right to make lie about god.
Who lied? Who pushed any agenda? Someone claimed it had never rained before, im asking for the verse that explains to noah what the word rain meant, since he will have never encountered it before.
It was quite a simple request, can you provide the verse? Are you even capable of a discussion or do you always assume theres an attack and a need to respond with name calling? If not then kindly be silent, your entertainment value is wearing thin.

Was Noah Jewish?

It was not a Global Flood thats why duhhh! it just most of the humans lived in the region that was flooded at the time, one humans lived outside that area. When it says Global it means more on a hypothetical term. Why are you trying to convert everyone to Atheism? why do you come and force this crap down everyone? why are you Atheist intolerant?

Actually humanity had spread already accross the earth and no, not most people lived in the area where Noah was residing. Global means hypothetical? Is that one of those things that only believers are capable of reading between the lines?

I'd rather wouldn't convert you to atheist. I'd rather send you back to elementary school.

I love to break it to the religious idiots of sciforums: there is geological evidence of rain at least 1 000 000 000 years ago, long before humans, dinosaurs and even the first tetrapods.
And overall geological and atmospherical patterns suggest of rain as early as 4 billion years ago.

i would be interested in hearing about the salt content of the ground throughout most of the middle east, actually. anybody know where to find that info?

however, i do believe that there was a catastrophic flood at a period in humanity's fairly early history. it was probably fairly localized throughout the world, as there is no evidence of a complete global flood.
many cultures throughout history that had no contact with eachother talk of a cataclysmic flood.

completely covered the earth? not likely.

many cultures throughout history that had no contact with eachother talk of a cataclysmic flood.

Yes, they do, and Noah is thought to be a fairly recent version of the myth.
My idea is that it has to do with the melting of ice during the last ice age when glacial lakes released huge quantities of water and new sea areas formed, coastal lines changed.

Anyway I recall it because he mentions a calculation as to what the rainfall rates must have been in order for such a volume of water to swell up in such a time, as described in the bible, and finds that the pressure exerted by the rain would far exceed that which would sink any type of aircraft carrier or sea vessel ever built. :p
Oh, it wouldn't stop just there; the pressure would also snap the wood of the boat, etc. If they didn't drown, a torrent of hundred-mile-per-hour water bloblets going through thier skull would...and we wouldn't exist...thus, the story is bullfrogshit. :D

Visitor said:

That change in axis tilt caused the water in the atmosphere to cool and congeal into rain, all over the world at the same time for 40 days, covering the tallest mountains for one years. At that time the new axis was established, the new poles began to acumulate snow and the water level went down as it was redistibuted again.

Cool! (no pun intended).

That explains a lot of things. The earth would have to start wobbling -- would this accelerate the ice ages? I'll have to look into it.

Here is a bible verse in Gen 8 that agrees with your hypothesis:

"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."

This is the first mention of seasonality, which comes from the earth tilting.

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood

1. I do not recall that it said Noah collected seed
2. if he didn't collect seed then only a limited percentage of plants is capable of regrowing from seed after flooding. Those are plants that are adapted to floodings or other harsh conditions.
3. If the whole world was flooded they would have covered the earth with salt water. This leaves the soil unusable for 99% of all plant life.
4. What did the animals eat when the plants were regrowing?

I think these 4 points refute the whole Noah's ark concept in a satisfactory manner. Not to mention all the other points raised before.


If the whole world was flooded they would have covered the earth with salt water. This leaves the soil unusable for 99% of all plant life.

The fresh rain water would dilute the salinity, but that doesn't matter.

If your theory is true then nothing will ever grow in New Orleans or surrounding areas now that it has been flooded with ocean water.

The EPA begs to differ with your theory:

Katrina's Environmental Assessment (http://www.epa.gov/katrina/testresults/katrina_env_assessment_summary.htm)

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center scientists recently collected soil and sediment samples from five areas in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes – Kenner , Lakeview, City Park , Mid-City and Old Metairie. They reported that their results indicate that gardeners do not need to worry about soil salinity and heavy metal content in the areas tested. There should be no problem with digging or planting in the soil. Growing vegetables for consumption is not affected, and there is no need for special soil treatment before replanting.


Well SM, so much for your salinity theory. New Orleans went under for several weeks, and folks can still garden there. :o

Yes, but the salt would be detectable all over the world. Not to mention the layers of debris that would be found under the ocean floor (not there).

Yes, but the salt would be detectable all over the world. Not to mention the layers of debris that would be found under the ocean floor (not there).

No big deal with salt in the New Orleans area -- give it several thousand more years and would anyone ever guess that Katrina hit there? Nahh maybe they would call it a fairy tale about as credible as Noah's arc.

What would debris on the ocean floor look like after several thousand years?

It would look like land vegetation, soil, mineral sediments, animal (and human) remains in a distinct layer in every ocean basin. In other words, once deposited, it wouldn't change very much in thousands of years except for the vegetation and flesh rotting.

It would look like land vegetation, soil, mineral sediments, animal (and human) remains in a distinct layer in every ocean basin. In other words, once deposited, it wouldn't change very much in thousands of years except for the vegetation and flesh rotting.

Creationists make the same argument about the absense of river sediments in the ocean floor. Assuming the earth is indeed 4 billion years old, where is all the sediment from the soil erosion that ran off of the continents? as you say -- not there.

If you answer that question then you probably counter your own point about Noah's flood.

No big deal with salt in the New Orleans area -- give it several thousand more years and would anyone ever guess that Katrina hit there? Nahh maybe they would call it a fairy tale about as credible as Noah's arc.

What would debris on the ocean floor look like after several thousand years?

You could measure it. Not guess it.

Muslim:

It was not a Global Flood thats why duhhh! it just most of the humans lived in the region that was flooded at the time, one humans lived outside that area. When it says Global it means more on a hypothetical term.

Woody thinks it was global. better take it up with him.

Woody:

Assuming the earth is indeed 4 billion years old, where is all the sediment from the soil erosion that ran off of the continents? as you say -- not there.

4 billion years is a tad longer than the 6000 years you will allow since the time of the Flood.

Soil is a complex mixture of organic compounds. My guess is that soil which flows into the sea is largely broken down by micro-organisms over long periods of time, as well as being redistributed by water currents.

Over enough time, even mountains are gradually weathered away. Look at the inland mountains in Australia compared to the mountains in volcanically active regions such as New Zealand. The Australian mountains are rounded and weathered. The New Zealand mountains are much more craggy and shear.

bottom line:
there is no scientific basis for the flood, and there is plenty of scientific evidence that there was no such event. you can go on and on with the if this, if that, maybe this, maybe that, but where is the evidence that suggests that this event did happen (not just could happen, but did)?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You've all missed the point? it was not a GLOBAL FLOOD! this is a miss translation from Latin the region at the time was on the continent of Africa including the middle east, you know the cradle of life? started! anyway most of the people were confined to that region. so when the flood happened everyone taught it was a global flood. I mean take the tsunami if you were there and all the water was coming in you'd assume this is happening every-where due to the volume of water coming at you.

also there is archaeological evidence to support most of the middle east was flooded.

bottom line:
there is no scientific basis for the flood, and there is plenty of scientific evidence that there was no such event. you can go on and on with the if this, if that, maybe this, maybe that, but where is the evidence that suggests that this event did happen (not just could happen, but did)?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

How about this "evidence" discovered recently from the Black Sea Project (http://whateveristrue.com/noahsark/floodrelic.htm):

THE EXPEDITION ALSO spotted planks, beams, tree branches and chunks of wood untouched by worms or mollusks, a strong indication that the oxygen-free waters of the Black Sea’s 7,000-foot-deep abyss may shelter intact shipwrecks dating back to the dawn of seafaring.
“It is beyond our wildest imagination,” explorer Robert D. Ballard, leader of the expedition, said yesterday. “Wood is existing much shallower than we thought. When we do go deep, it can only get better.”
The discovery is the latest from the Black Sea project to look for ancient shipwrecks and perhaps evidence of a great flood. Late last year, the team discovered the outlines of an ancient coast 550 feet below the current waterline, the first visual evidence that a flood had occurred in the region eons ago.

How do you explain shipwrecks in a shoreline that is 550 feet in depth below the current one on the Black Sea?

To find evidence, you have to be looking for it in the right place. Who's looking for the evidence in the evolution community?

Drum Roll Please:

http://whateveristrue.com/noahsark/485398.jpg

Perhaps this will answer S/G's question about a lack of flood evidence in the ocean floor:

Archaeologists have long been interested in the Black Sea, because its waters are anoxic – lacking in oxygen – below a depth of 500 feet. In theory, organic material that shipworms quickly gobble elsewhere would lie untouched in the Black Sea’s sterile depths. Later this month Ballard plans the first-ever exploration of the Black Sea floor.

Of course this doesn't prove Noah's ark ever existed, but it does test the premise of a flood during the time of humanity. The science community is apparantly closed-minded about it because it has religious overtones. Surely they will come up with their own sanitized version of whatever flood evidence is discovered, that helps them sleep better at night.

There is a debate on the black sea deluge theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory). But nobody denies that the Black Sea "flooded" contemporanous with man.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Black-sea-hist.png/300px-Black-sea-hist.png
Black Sea today (light blue) and in 5600 BCE according to Ryan's and Pitman's theories

I got this and other information from this link:

Noah (http://whateveristrue.com/noahsark/)

Fascinating. Noah's flood is claimed to happen about 7,500 years ago, and here's what's been found:

In a series of expeditions, a team of marine archeologists led by Robert Ballard identified what appeared to be ancient shorelines, freshwater snail shells, drowned river valleys, tool-worked timbers, and man-made structures in roughly 300 feet (100 m) of water off the Black Sea coast of modern Turkey. Radiocarbon dating of freshwater mollusk remains indicated an age of about 7,000 years.

According to a report in New Scientist magazine (May 4, 2002, p. 13), the researchers found an underwater delta south of the Bosporus. There was evidence for a strong flow of fresh water out of the Black Sea in the 8th millennium BCE.

The review of sediments in the Black Sea in 2004 by a pan-European project (Assemblage - Noah Project) confirmed the conclusion of Pitman/Ryan. Further, calculations made by Mark Siddall predicted an underwater canyon that was actually found.

The hypothesis remains an active subject of debate among archaeologists.

There is also similar evidence in the Persian Gulf.

Scientists dispute the arc flood with a theory that the Mediterranean Sea rose and flooded the Black Sea which was then a freshwater body.

They counter claim:

Then, about 5600 BC, as sea levels rose, Ryan and Pitman suggest, the rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosphorus.

Well somebody tell me what caused the Mediterreanen sea to rise -- was it a flood? What about the Caspian Sea?

The Caspian Sea is a landlocked endorheic sea between Asia and Europe (European Russia). It is the world's largest inland body of water. It has a surface area of 371,000 km² (143,000 sq. mi.), and a maximum depth of about 980m (3200 ft). Thus it has characteristics common to both seas and lakes. It is often listed as the world's largest lake, though it is not a freshwater one. It has a salinity of approximately 1.2%, about a third the salinity of sea water.

Those scientists appear to be in error concerning the Black Sea. The Caspian Sea, which is even further inland is saline and landlocked.

The Caspian became landlocked about 5.5 million years ago. The level of the Caspian has fallen and risen, often rapidly, many times over the centuries. Some Russian historians claim that a medieval rising of the Caspian caused the coastal towns of Khazaria, such as Atil, to flood. In 2004, the water level is -28 metres, or 28 metres/92 feet below sea level.

Somebody tell me how much the earth would have to flood in order to create the Caspian. Why is the salinity only 1/3 that of the ocean? Something doesn't fit. Any scientists around here?

woody well done. Excellent post! which has irrefutable evidence.

http://www.caspianenvironment.org/newsite/Caspian-Background.htm

How do you explain shipwrecks

Ships invariably get destroyed and sink every now and then. Such is life.. yes, even unsinkable ships like the Titanic. Ancient poorly built ships would be even more likely to sink.

a shoreline that is 550 feet in depth below the current one on the Black Sea?

Firstly let me just say I would be somewhat more impressed if the story featured on more well known and respected website. Indeed I start to question validity of stories when they contain spelling errors in the first sentence.

I would expect to see the evidence gathered from the claimed expedition - be that with actual relics or through photography. There are probably a million poorly designed sites that make claims that are indeed fallacious.

Having said all that, I doubt one person here will decline from stating that floods do happen and have happened. It is a leap of extreme proportions to go from a sunken ship to a boat piloted by 8 people that had in excess of 3 million animals on board while every other breathing creature on the planet got whacked.

While it is always of historical interest to find sunken ships, ancient ruins, even a roman coin in your back garden.. it does not in any way attest to a global flood survived by a 600 year old sinless man that had several million pets. K?

Of course this doesn't prove Noah's ark ever existed, but it does test the premise of a flood during the time of humanity.

Premise of a flood? Dude.. there's been many floods. Hell, there's floods every year in England. Of course you were completely correct with the first part of your sentence.

The science community is apparantly closed-minded about it because it has religious overtones.

Don't be silly. Science just doesn't say there was a 600 year old man with 3 million animals and be done with it. Science finds the 'real' answers, regardless to how nice or horrible they sound.

Radiocarbon dating of freshwater mollusk remains indicated an age of about 7,000 years.

Since when did you religious fundies start believing carbon dating was accurate? It's quite bizarre, but if this was a discussion refuting something religious, (say the shroud of turin), you'd be the very first person telling us all how unworthy carbon dating is.

Btw, I'm sure many freshwater animals died 7,500 years ago.. just as they continue to do today.

Scientists dispute the arc flood with a theory that the Mediterranean Sea rose and flooded the Black Sea which was then a freshwater body.

There you go then. Why do you instantly dismiss what science has to say on the matter?

Somebody tell me how much the earth would have to flood in order to create the Caspian. Why is the salinity only 1/3 that of the ocean? Something doesn't fit. Any scientists around here?

Why you asking for scientists here when you've already quoted some things written by scientists? If their explanation is not good enough for you, why would ours be?

Let me just end by reaffirming that floods do and have happened. How do you get from a flood, (which is a regular occurrence), to a 600 year old man with 3 million animals?

Snakelord, where do you get '3 million animals' from?? Species is different to a tpe of animals. Gathering a male and female spider is not the same as gathering a male and female of every type of spider!

Snakelord, where do you get '3 million animals' from?? Species is different to a tpe of animals.

This is a debate in and of itself, but it stands that the majority of people of such fundamentalist nature to believe Noah is true would instantly and outright deny 'evolution'. As such, any species that is alive today was alive then - and as such needed to be on the ark to be saved from extinction.

If you're personally cool with evolution, and willing to just dampen the biblical text then fine.. there was a dude with a rowboat that saved a pet goat when the local river went a little higher than normal. I'm good with that too.

From a biblical perspective, god says:

"of every clean animal you must take seven pairs... of every unclean animal you must take two..."

This text clearly states that two/seven of every animal and species of animal must be taken on the ark. It does not imply that Noah is instructed to take 2 spiders and feel happy.

Noah...would instantly and outright deny 'evolution'. As such, any species that is alive today was alive then - and as such needed to be on the ark to be saved from extinction. Perhaps creation and evolution are both true! :eek: God could have created the animals and time created the species', hence Darwin's 'Origin Of The Species' (as I was told by a wise man)!

Firstly let me just say I would be somewhat more impressed if the story featured on more well known and respected website. Indeed I start to question validity of stories when they contain spelling errors in the first sentence.

So what do you think of William Ryan and Walter Pitman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory), geologists from Columbia University, who in 1998 published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about 5600 BCE? Do you think they have a religious agenda?

While it is always of historical interest to find sunken ships, ancient ruins, even a roman coin in your back garden.. it does not in any way attest to a global flood survived by a 600 year old sinless man that had several million pets. K?

So what do you think of the Black Sea supposedly being freshwater (before the flood), according evolutionists, and then became a saltwater body -- disproving a large-scale flood? The Caspian Sea, which is further inland, is saline, and has seals living in it. Does this seem consistent to you?

Premise of a flood? Dude.. there's been many floods. Hell, there's floods every year in England. Of course you were completely correct with the first part of your sentence.

We're speaking of continental and/or intercontinental flooding.

Since when did you religious fundies start believing carbon dating was accurate? It's quite bizarre, but if this was a discussion refuting something religious

OK then, would you prefer I use a bible instead of science? I have no problem with the theory behind scientific dating methods -- but I might have a disagreement on some of the assumptions (inputs) being used. Imperfect inputs in a perfect model yield imperfect results.

Btw, I'm sure many freshwater animals died 7,500 years ago.. just as they continue to do today

I almost completely agree -- it was a non-impact event during a worldwide flood. Fresh water species survived.

There you go then. Why do you instantly dismiss what science has to say on the matter?

Because they can not agree -- some say it (the Black Sea) was saline, and others say it was freshwater. Those that don't accept Noah's flood prefer the freshwater version.

Why you asking for scientists here when you've already quoted some things written by scientists? If their explanation is not good enough for you, why would ours be?

Probably best to read about it on my own. ;)

http://www.caspianenvironment.org/newsite/Caspian-Background.htm

Thanks for the link on the Caspian. It says the Caspian Sea was at one time connected to both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It first disconnected from the Pacific, then the atlantic. The seal species there is quite unique, as well as other uniques life forms.

I just read a bit of the chapter on Noah's ark. I now have a question for the rigid believers amongst us.

I saw no mention of plants. Just creatures of flesh. How do you suppose plants survived a global flood.

God and His angels (possibly the UFO aliens) could have easily replanted the Earth with whatever plants they wanted to.
Called the Watchers and the Holy Ones in Daniel; God's angels seem to be like the caretakers of the planet.

Seeds float do they not? They could have floated until they were deposited on soil...and then grew.

I have some questions about Noah's flood:

1. Why is there no layering of sediments across the world in every cliff, oil wellm coal mine etc., showing conglomerates, sand, siltstones, mudstones and claystones?
2. If all fossilisation is due to animals being killed in the flood:
(a) why does the fossil record include floating sea creatures such as ammonites and nautiloids, which would not die in a flood?
(b) Why are many fossils only found in specific geographic areas, and in certain well-defined layers? Wouldn't they all have been mixed up, especially in the layering?
3. If the layering of sediments was caused during the flood, then the thick layers of salt which are seen must have been dissolved in the waters during the flood. These salt layers should be obvious in the top layers of the land and ocean floor today. But the ocean floor is not covered by salt. Why not?
4. Why aren't the salt layers uniform across the world? In Australia, salt layers are much rarer in the rocks than in the UK, for example.
5. A world-wide flood which covered all the mountains would require 4.4 billion cubic kilometres of water to be added to the oceans. Where did the water come from? If it was rain, then during the rain the atmosphere would have had to have been 99.9% water vapour, which would be unbreathable. The density of the atmosphere would have been 840 times greater than what it is now, so any animals with lungs would have died (including those on the ark).
6. Were the flood waters fresh water? If so, the oceans would have been diluted and most salt-water species would have died.
7. How did Noah build such a large ark? How many helpers did he have? The ark would be 150 metres long, 25 wide and 15 high, with three decks.
8. How did Noah cope with feeding all the animals? For example, elephants need 300 kilograms of greenery per day. Where was the food kept? And how was it gathered?
9. How did Noah get the large animals such as hippos and elephants into the ark? Were there dinosaurs, too?
10. What did Noah do with the 10000 different species of termites he had on his wooden ark?
11. How could the ark, made entirely of gopher wood, be sea-worthy, considering that the other largest wooden ship ever built (at 110 metres long) was unstable and had to be continuously pumped out? Who did the pumping on Noah's ark?
12. How was the ark made strong enough to carry all the weight of all the creatures on board?
13. Was there enough space on the ark for all the animals? Assume 30 percent of the volume would have been taken up by the structural supports, decking etc. How much space did each species have?
14. How did Noah preserve fresh Eucalyptus leaves for the Koalas, for 40 days and nights? How did the Koalas get to the ark from Australia?
15. There are many tree-dwelling animals which cannot be kept in cages, but need trees. How did Noah collect and store the trees?
16. How did Noah keep the Platypuses and the Otters, which require free-flowing water?
17. Some animals die if not kept at a cold temperature? What refrigeration was available on the ark?
18. Limestone would have been washed into the sea, along with huge amounts of mud and clay. How did the sea creatures survive? How did coral reefs survive?
19. How is the genetic diversity of species alive today explained, in light of the flood which occurred only 6000 years ago? There doesn't seem to have been time for such diversity to develop.
20. Many insects cannot reproduce unless they are part of a colony. Many birds will not reproduce unless they are part of a flock. How were numbers repopulated after the flood, with only two of each animal?
21. The great majority of plants and their seeds will die in salt water. How did they survive?
22. Many plants need insects to polinate them. How did they survive after the flood?
23. How did Noah get the ark loaded in one 24 hour period?
24. How did the Dodo, a flightless bird, reach the ark? Did it swim across the Indian ocean?
25. Which of the people on the ark carried all the sexually-transmitted diseases which otherwise would have died out in the flood?
26. What did Noah do about the hermaphrodites and other organisms which produce asexually, or which do not have a definite sex?
27. How were the carnivores which only feed on fresh meat fed on the ark? What about the animals which only eat living animals?
28. Did Noah have a huge supply of bamboo for the pandas?
29. How did Noah preserve all the parasites which live only on certain animals?
30. Kuru is a disease from the New Guinea highlands, which only cannibals can get by eating a person's brains. Which of Noah's family ate somebody's brains to ensure the survival of that disease?
31. Who had the feeding duties on the ark? How did they supply food to all the animals? How many animals per minute could they feed?
32. How did the animals which require exercise get it on the ark?
33. Who cleaned up the waste from all the animals? How big a job was this?
34. How did the animals below decks breathe?
35. When the ark landed on Mt Ararat, how did the tropical animals survive the cold?
36. What did the animals eat after leaving the ark?

I hope you can help me, Woody.

The fresh rain water would dilute the salinity, but that doesn't matter.
Yes, it would. The oceans we be desalinated to the point that most, if not all, seafaring animals would die. Sharks, other oceanic fishes, whales, jellyfish, etc. All would become extinct. They wouldn't be able to adapt fast enough. But, wait...if I remember correctly, sharks and whales and marlins and sea creatures of all sorts still exist. :rolleyes:
Any thing you say to try to prove your ridiculous fairy tale will be shot down.

Woody, i hope you answer James R questions ! We want your answers NOW ! :D

Perhaps creation and evolution are both true! God could have created the animals and time created the species

Certainly, but that doesn't generally stop the fundie that outright denies any possibility that evolution can happen.

If we take your stance as opposed to the typical religious stance, we'd also have to question whether the mass diversity of animals that we see today could have arisen from a mere handful 6,000 years ago. There's several thousand species of spider.. could they all have come from 2 spiders in such a short amount of time?

So what do you think of William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University, who in 1998 published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about 5600 BCE? Do you think they have a religious agenda?

I wouldn't know, I don't know much about them. This thread is talking about a global flood.. There is much evidence out there that floods have occurred, (both big and small), but unless they're pushing for a global flood theory and a man on a boat with lots of animals, (in which case they most certainly are pushing a religious agenda), then I personally fail to see it's worth here.

Once again: I am in no way denying that floods do and have occurred.

So what do you think of the Black Sea supposedly being freshwater (before the flood), according evolutionists, and then became a saltwater body?

Again, I have no qualms with floods. They do happen. If you want, feel free to list every flood in the history of this planet, but it is pointless with concerns to the claim of a global flood that wiped out everything except 8 people and a bunch of animals that were safely tucked away on a rickety old barge.

We're speaking of continental and/or intercontinental flooding.

No, we were talking about a global flood. A flood that covered everything upto the highest mountains.

OK then, would you prefer I use a bible instead of science?

No, but you generally do. However, that's not what I was getting at and you know it.

but I might have a disagreement on some of the assumptions (inputs) being used. Imperfect inputs in a perfect model yield imperfect results.

So in short you're saying that if carbon dating goes against religious beliefs you'll disagree with carbon dating, but if it agrees with it, you'll agree?

it was a non-impact event during a worldwide flood.

Now we just await evidence of a global flood.

Because they can not agree -- some say it (the Black Sea) was saline, and others say it was freshwater.

So then, by your own statement here, you also have to disagree with everyone else - because they are disagreeing with someone else, (including Pitman and Ryan).

14. How did Noah preserve fresh Eucalyptus leaves for the Koalas, for 40 days and nights?

addition to this one, it rained for 40 days, but they did not hit land for 10 months, and it was another 40 days before they left the arc (TNIV)

I have some questions about Noah's flood:

1. Why is there no layering of sediments across the world in every cliff, oil wellm coal mine etc., showing conglomerates, sand, siltstones, mudstones and claystones?

This has already been covered in previous posts.

2. If all fossilisation is due to animals being killed in the flood:
(a) why does the fossil record include floating sea creatures such as ammonites and nautiloids, which would not die in a flood?
(b) Why are many fossils only found in specific geographic areas, and in certain well-defined layers? Wouldn't they all have been mixed up, especially in the layering?

All fossilization is not due to the flood.

3. If the layering of sediments was caused during the flood, then the thick layers of salt which are seen must have been dissolved in the waters during the flood. These salt layers should be obvious in the top layers of the land and ocean floor today. But the ocean floor is not covered by salt. Why not?

Not sure what you are asking for. Salt in the ocean floor would dissolve.


4. Why aren't the salt layers uniform across the world? In Australia, salt layers are much rarer in the rocks than in the UK, for example.


5. A world-wide flood which covered all the mountains would require 4.4 billion cubic kilometres of water to be added to the oceans. Where did the water come from? If it was rain, then during the rain the atmosphere would have had to have been 99.9% water vapour, which would be unbreathable. The density of the atmosphere would have been 840 times greater than what it is now, so any animals with lungs would have died (including those on the ark).

The fountains of the deep. I guess you ignored that post.

6. Were the flood waters fresh water? If so, the oceans would have been diluted and most salt-water species would have died.

They came from inside the earth -- the same place where the salt and other minerals originally came from that salinated the ocean.


7. How did Noah build such a large ark? How many helpers did he have? The ark would be 150 metres long, 25 wide and 15 high, with three decks.

I don't know the prevailing wage for hired help back then.

8. How did Noah cope with feeding all the animals? For example, elephants need 300 kilograms of greenery per day. Where was the food kept? And how was it gathered?

9. How did Noah get the large animals such as hippos and elephants into the ark? Were there dinosaurs, too?

no dinosaurs. some suggest the flood ended the dinosaurs, but I don't agree.

10. What did Noah do with the 10000 different species of termites he had on his wooden ark?

After reading up on the insects, I am inclined to think he didn't bring them or any other animals that would cause problems in the food supplies.

You will say that disproves the ark theory -- but I have a question for you: How did the Krakota volcano become repopulated with insects and other small land creatures after its explosive eruption? Surely nothing could have survived that -- the extreme heat and toxic gasses.


11. How could the ark, made entirely of gopher wood, be sea-worthy, considering that the other largest wooden ship ever built (at 110 metres long) was unstable and had to be continuously pumped out? Who did the pumping on Noah's ark?
12. How was the ark made strong enough to carry all the weight of all the creatures on board?
13. Was there enough space on the ark for all the animals? Assume 30 percent of the volume would have been taken up by the structural supports, decking etc. How much space did each species have?
14. How did Noah preserve fresh Eucalyptus leaves for the Koalas, for 40 days and nights? How did the Koalas get to the ark from Australia?
15. There are many tree-dwelling animals which cannot be kept in cages, but need trees. How did Noah collect and store the trees?
16. How did Noah keep the Platypuses and the Otters, which require free-flowing water?
17. Some animals die if not kept at a cold temperature? What refrigeration was available on the ark?
18. Limestone would have been washed into the sea, along with huge amounts of mud and clay. How did the sea creatures survive? How did coral reefs survive?
19. How is the genetic diversity of species alive today explained, in light of the flood which occurred only 6000 years ago? There doesn't seem to have been time for such diversity to develop.
20. Many insects cannot reproduce unless they are part of a colony. Many birds will not reproduce unless they are part of a flock. How were numbers repopulated after the flood, with only two of each animal?
21. The great majority of plants and their seeds will die in salt water. How did they survive?
22. Many plants need insects to polinate them. How did they survive after the flood?
23. How did Noah get the ark loaded in one 24 hour period?
24. How did the Dodo, a flightless bird, reach the ark? Did it swim across the Indian ocean?
25. Which of the people on the ark carried all the sexually-transmitted diseases which otherwise would have died out in the flood?
26. What did Noah do about the hermaphrodites and other organisms which produce asexually, or which do not have a definite sex?
27. How were the carnivores which only feed on fresh meat fed on the ark? What about the animals which only eat living animals?
28. Did Noah have a huge supply of bamboo for the pandas?
29. How did Noah preserve all the parasites which live only on certain animals?
30. Kuru is a disease from the New Guinea highlands, which only cannibals can get by eating a person's brains. Which of Noah's family ate somebody's brains to ensure the survival of that disease?
31. Who had the feeding duties on the ark? How did they supply food to all the animals? How many animals per minute could they feed?
32. How did the animals which require exercise get it on the ark?
33. Who cleaned up the waste from all the animals? How big a job was this?
34. How did the animals below decks breathe?
35. When the ark landed on Mt Ararat, how did the tropical animals survive the cold?
36. What did the animals eat after leaving the ark?

I hope you can help me, Woody.

yeah lots of sticky details.

I have some questions for you? What is the manmade structure that is on the northeast face of mount ararat at about 14,000 feet in elevation, partially buried in a glacier. It has been sited on various air flights when the weather is right. Also satellite photos.

Why are the CIA satellite photographs of Mt. Ararat classified information?

How difficult would it be to excavate an archaelogical find at this location given the terrain, the weather, the unstable political climate, and the religion clashes over a find that would be "owned" by 3 religions?

So what do you think of William Ryan and Walter Pitman[/URL], geologists from Columbia University, who in 1998 published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about 5600 BCE? Do you think they have a religious agenda?

Here's what I think (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/noahsflood.htm).


So what do you think of the Black Sea supposedly being freshwater (before the flood), according evolutionists, and then became a saltwater body -- disproving a large-scale flood?

This is according to geologists. Saying that it is "according [to] evolutionists" is implying that they had a conclusion and then sought data to support it. Only religious nutters like creationists work in this manner.

SL said:

So in short you're saying that if carbon dating goes against religious beliefs you'll disagree with carbon dating, but if it agrees with it, you'll agree?

No, in short I'm saying anyone can cook the books whether it's an evolutionist wanting to prove his point, buying all the time he can get, or a creationist trying to preserve the 7 day 24 hour creation "account," which I don't agree with.

I ask you the same question as JamesR -- what's the object spotted on Mt. Ararat? Maybe its not the ark but what is it?

Woody don't mind James, he would rather believe in "fish women (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53058&page=6&pp=20)" then the flood.

Here's what I think (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/noahsflood.htm).




This is according to geologists. Saying that it is "according [to] evolutionists" is implying that they had a conclusion and then sought data to support it. Only religious nutters like creationists work in this manner.

Did a creationist come up with Piltdown man?

Skinwalker and his prejudices -- two peas in a pod.

I have some questions for you? What is the manmade structure that is on the northeast face of mount ararat at about 14,000 feet in elevation, partially buried in a glacier. It has been sited on various air flights when the weather is right. Also satellite photos.

Why are the CIA satellite photographs of Mt. Ararat classified information?

You sound just like the UFO nutters that go on about government conspiracies to suppress knowledge of space aliens. Do you wear a tin-foil hat, too, Woody?

Where's the evidence that there is a man-made object on Mt. Ararat? Why would anything have been expected to survive, structurally, in all these thousands of years?

Did a creationist come up with Piltdown man?

It was antiquarian hoaxers. Science debunked Piltdown, a 19th century hoax. Just as science debunks creationist nonsense.

Skinwalker and his prejudices -- two peas in a pod.

There's no prejudice, Woody. Simply objectivity. Unlike you, my opinions are subject to revision should evidence be produced to change them. I, like most who accept science instead of reject it, form conclusions based on evidence. Religious nutters and the like work the other way: they form evidence based on conclusions.

Your honesty is what is in question more than your beliefs.

I ask again: where's the evidence that there is a man-made structure on Mt Ararat?

I ask you the same question as JamesR -- what's the object spotted on Mt. Ararat? Maybe its not the ark but what is it?

Well, if I were to be honest, I would have to say that the object is... well, an unknown object - until such time where what that object actually is could be verified. You talk about agendas, but what is it when a man claims something is a particular thing before being able to justify that claim?

Satellite images are vastly unreliable.. For decades people thought the face on mars was actually an alien-made face. Shows you the worthlessness of unjustifiable claims.

the bible was written by a man who was teling a story,


why dont we all go and start debating about weather or not all the story books of old are not real,


ofcourse its not real its a storybook, a philosophy book of metaphores, you dont see all the chinese population believing in all of the myths atleast they take it as philosophy and metaphore.


watch out the dragon is comming earthquake alert. no the dragon that flys through the buildings and over the mountains is the wind,






peace.

but snake, all of the scientists do the same, thats bieng a hypocrite if i have to be honest, scientists believe "unconfirmed truths" (thanks QQ i will use that alot) alot of the time,

peace.

the bible was written by a man who was teling a story,
No, it was written by many men and many of the stories are mythological, i.e., with no one author.

No, it was written by many men and many of the stories are mythological, i.e., with no one author.

In other words, a book of fairy tales.

No, it was written by many men and many of the stories are mythological, i.e., with no one author.


sorry your correct,


60 different scripts were in the bible right? and ok not a single story but still, many stories,

a mythological philosophy or metaphore is a story to me, maybe because i enjoy reading them,


peace.

In other words, a book of fairy tales.


yeah but for adults, i havent seen many little kids understand the bible when reading it,


peace.

In other words, a book of fairy tales.
Mostly, but not entirely. There are historical and semi-hostorical events depicted too.

yeah but for adults, i havent seen many little kids understand the bible when reading it,
Funny you should say so. At least 90% of adults don't understand it too.
It's a mythology of another age, another place and entirely another people with world view not compatible with current knowledge.
To even begin to understand the bible you have to be a little bit of a historian and anthropologist first.

Mostly, but not entirely. There are historical and semi-hostorical events depicted too.

Usually in a fantastic way, though, as to the historical.

You have to look on the little things: like distribution of food, methods of farming, etc., things that nobody found the need to exaggerate or censor. But, of course, bible is a lot better source to study cultural history than factual history.

I agree with that. I think there are some good lessons in the bible, from a cultural standpoint.

You sound just like the UFO nutters that go on about government conspiracies to suppress knowledge of space aliens. Do you wear a tin-foil hat, too, Woody?

Where's the evidence that there is a man-made object on Mt. Ararat? Why would anything have been expected to survive, structurally, in all these thousands of years?

yeah I figured you'd say something like that. Sounds like Skinny in true form.

I ask again: where's the evidence that there is a man-made structure on Mt Ararat?

Check out my next thread. Be ready to watch some long videos -- I hope it doesn't put you to sleep like a bedtime story.

next thread on the ark (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53175)

Creationists make the same argument about the absense of river sediments in the ocean floor. Assuming the earth is indeed 4 billion years old, where is all the sediment from the soil erosion that ran off of the continents? as you say -- not there.

If you answer that question then you probably counter your own point about Noah's flood.
It forms what are known as river deltas. In many places, it builds up on the ocean floor. Often, due to continental drift, it gets pushed above sea level to become land again.

With all the methane produced by the tons of manure, how did Noah and his family tend to the animals on the lower decks and during the night, when natural light wouldn't be available? Any type of lamp or torch used for lighting would've blown the entire ark into bits because of the explosive amounts of the highly flammable methane gas.

The bible gives the measurements for the ark doesn't it? If we calculated the aprroximate volume of two of every animal on earth, compared to the volume of the ark, I'm pretty damn sure that there's no way there was enough room for every animal to live on that thing. Also, at the time the bible was written, noone had any idea the Americas existed. How did all the animals get there? I could go on, but i think it's already been proven several times over that the story's a load of bull.

*edit* ...But then, just about every phrase in the bible's been proven a load of bull several times over, but that doesn't stop the millions of people who live by it.

of course, it's hard to accept creationists and religion, but it's easy to accept things like the big bang theory?

matter cannot be created nor destroyed, right? where the matter/energy from the big bang originate from? energy just appeared out of nowhere? the big bang started with a super small particle that exploded to form "everything", right? where did that super small particle come from? it just appeared one day and decided, "hey, i'm going to explode and create everything!"?

Woody:

yeah lots of sticky details.

Yes, lots of sticky details. Have you ever really thought about how absurd the ark story is? If not, read my list of questions carefully. Discuss them with your Creationist friends.

I have some questions for you? What is the manmade structure that is on the northeast face of mount ararat at about 14,000 feet in elevation, partially buried in a glacier.

Which manmade structure are you referring to?

What do scientists think it is? Surely somebody must have an idea...

It has been sited on various air flights when the weather is right. Also satellite photos.

And nobody has taken a closer look?

Why are the CIA satellite photographs of Mt. Ararat classified information?

I don't know. How do you know such photos exist, if they are classified?

How difficult would it be to excavate an archaelogical find at this location given the terrain, the weather, the unstable political climate, and the religion clashes over a find that would be "owned" by 3 religions?

I don't know. You tell me.

of course, it's hard to accept creationists and religion, but it's easy to accept things like the big bang theory?

No, it's hard to accept the big bang theory. We accept it because all the available scientific evidence supports it. On the other hand, there's no evidence which supports creationism, and much evidence against it.

matter cannot be created nor destroyed, right?

Wrong. Matter and energy can be changed one into the other, according to E=mc².

where the matter/energy from the big bang originate from? energy just appeared out of nowhere?

We don't know where all the energy came from, for sure. There are a number of physical theories about where it might have come from.

The fact that not everything is known is not a problem for science. There will always be things we don't know about our universe. Gradually, we chip away at the things we don't know, and learn more.

Not knowing is only a problem for Religion, which claims to already have all the answers.

the big bang started with a super small particle that exploded to form "everything", right? where did that super small particle come from? it just appeared one day and decided, "hey, i'm going to explode and create everything!"?

It's quite a bit more complicated than a "super small particle".

But yes, it is quite possible that it just appeared one day. We know, for example, that even in a pure vacuum there are constant energy fluctuations which can create particles out of nothing for a short time.

30. Kuru is a disease from the New Guinea highlands, which only cannibals can get by eating a person's brains. Which of Noah's family ate somebody's brains to ensure the survival of that disease?

30. Kuru is a disease from the New Guinea highlands, which only cannibals can get by eating a person's brains. Which of Noah's family ate somebody's brains to ensure the survival of that disease?

They supposedly came back from seeds.


Ark: Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, a chest of box, Pandora's
Box, the Holy Ark, the Holy Grail, the Vessel that holds the Seed
the spirit, the Nature of all living things, Reality, the Spirit, the Nature,
the Way, of God, the Single True Nature of the Universe which in innate
to the Reality of Everything, the animate and the inanimate.

Ark is a perversion of the Word Arch; a combining form meaning “chief, leader, ruler,”

From Source (http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/02_1.shtml):

The theory of a past ice age, which initially had been rejected by many leading geologists, was not new to many Alpine naturalists. But it was slow in gaining general acceptance by the profession, especially against the ingrained concept of the “Great Flood,” which could explain so many of the features Agassiz ascribed to ice action

So the Great Flood seemed to explain a lot of geological features of the earth.

Interesting

Perhaps Noah's Arc should be called the "great ice flood."

When you say 'Great Flood', do you mean a flood that was truly global?

When you say 'Great Flood', do you mean a flood that was truly global?

Yes

And I take it that this flood is presumed by some to be the agent behind the origin of such formations as the Grand Canyon and Washington's Channeled Scablands?

So again, Woody, where is the debris that would have littered the ocean floor all over the world?

James R said:

The fact that not everything is known is not a problem for science. There will always be things we don't know about our universe. Gradually, we chip away at the things we don't know, and learn more.


Woody's word substitutions:

The fact that not everything is known is not a problem for true believers. There will always be things we don't know about our universe even things that seemingly contradict a natural explanation. Gradually, we chip away at the things we don't understand, and learn to accept them by faith.

So Woody, are you saying that a true believer shouldn't enquire as to why the flood water was so selective in where it left its mark, and why - as highlighted by Spidergoat - a global layer of marine sediment was not deposited?

So again, Woody, where is the debris that would have littered the ocean floor all over the world?

I've already answered that one in the post about the Black Sea (on this particular thread series). The vegetation you are looking for is found where a lack of oxygen has allowed it to remain (as in the Black Sea).

My quote from the source:

Archaeologists have long been interested in the Black Sea, because its waters are anoxic – lacking in oxygen – below a depth of 500 feet. In theory, organic material that shipworms quickly gobble elsewhere would lie untouched in the Black Sea’s sterile depths. Later this month Ballard plans the first-ever exploration of the Black Sea floor.

This came from the Black Sea Project (http://whateveristrue.com/noahsark/floodrelic.htm) Link

Woody's word substitutions:

The fact that not everything is known is not a problem for true believers. There will always be things we don't know about our universe even things that seemingly contradict a natural explanation. Gradually, we chip away at the things we don't understand, and learn to accept them by faith.
Woody, you do understand that this makes you a self-professed professional ignoramus, don't you?

Gradually, we chip away at the things we don't understand, and learn to accept them by faith.
SL's word substitutions:

As "True Believers^TM", we learn to fear and dismiss the things we don't understand, and in our lazyness, roll over like beaten dogs and accept them by faith.

Yes, woody, where is the global layer of marine sediment?

He will come back with an url of a goldfish buried in a field...

HaHahahahah!!! :D :m:

HaHahahahah!!! :D :m:


Possibly the Flood Account (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html) could have come this way. It is linked to the Ice Ages. By the way even the American Indians have a version of the great flood.

He will come back with an url of a goldfish buried in a field...


Ballard found the Titanic.

Ballard found the Titanic.

Woody, marine sediment world wide?

An asteroid hit 65 million years ago and left a teeny tiny layer of iridium. This flood of yours would have been far worse and it happened only yesterday, geologically speaking. Evidence please?

Woody, marine sediment world wide?

This flood of yours would have been far worse and it happened only yesterday, geologically speaking. Evidence please?

Sorry to jump in out of no where. But no, it didn't happen just "yesturday".

The flood would have tooken place, around the same amount of time back, as it did to repopulate the Earth. Which isn't an overnight process.

It is damn near impossible for it to happen in a recent amount of time. It would take thousands upon thousands of years to repopulate the earth, after such a great flood.



To who is demanding proof. Why don't you tell us how we find the proof. How can we find out about a flood, so long ago. We don't even have an accurate time line of when it happened. It's more like finding a needle in a hay stack. But are you denying that the earth has ever had a great flood? Then how did water get on the earth? Wasn't that a great flood. I believe that last theory i heard on it was, something about thousands of years of rain. From volcanic activity. I can't really remember what the direct cause was. But purely having water on Earth is a good evidence of a flood.

Woody, marine sediment world wide?

An asteroid hit 65 million years ago and left a teeny tiny layer of iridium. This flood of yours would have been far worse and it happened only yesterday, geologically speaking. Evidence please?

It's not "my" flood. There are evidences of water lines in North America and Europe that agree. There are mountain tops that have evidences of marine life on them, including Mt. Everest. The surface of the earth is quite smooth when you compare it to the earth's diameter. All life is living within plus or minus 5 miles of sea level, and the earth is almost 4,000 miles in diameter.

In all the theories of the earth's origin there are some pretty farfetched ideas that are accepted as science such as: the earth collided with a large planet which knocked away the earth's moon and a lot of the earth's atmosphere.

How about Woody's theory: A large planet passed very close to the earth almost 7,500 years ago -- causing a catastrophic tidal surge that flooded half of the earth. After the planet passed by -- the other half of the earth was flooded to the depth of 15 cubits as the water surged back-- so that all the world was flooded for many weeks but not at exactly the same time. So an ocean going vessel was a necessity for some 35,000 types of animals.

The earth didn't even have to collide to cause a flood of global proportions with my theory, and hence it is more credible than a planetary collision causing the moon to form -- because that would be more catastrophic.

It rained some too because of the atmospheric pressure changes, and the earth lost part of it's atmosphere so the seasons would be more temperate as they are today -- this helped get rid of some of the surplus water too which resulted from the fountains of the deep bursting open from the gravitational pull of the other planet. Hence the earth now has less water content than other space matter, and now we have comets as a result to proove the theory.

If Noah hadn't been shut up in that big boat of his without any windows, he would have seen the whole thing so he could pass it on to Moses.

You gotta admit -- it's a pretty clever and orginal idea by moi. ;)

The insanity. It's so depressing.

Woody, marine sediment world wide?

An asteroid hit 65 million years ago and left a teeny tiny layer of iridium. This flood of yours would have been far worse and it happened only yesterday, geologically speaking. Evidence please?

grand canyon and sahara... must be evidence of the flood.

the asteroid is just a theory... and a stupid theory too.

Woody's theory
LOL !!!, Woody as theory to prove Noah's ark !... hooo boy... :D

Very very cute... very very CUUUUTEE :p

"But purely having water on Earth is a good evidence of a flood."

* Oh, boy.

"The insanity. It's so depressing."

* Keep your chin up Cotton, never mind the flood, I think we`ve found the missing link! :D

ROFLMFAO!!!! I think so too. :D

Yet another flood theory:

It came from comet impact (http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/4related.html#c8)

Well maybe my theory isn't as orginal as I thought. It is credited for the geology on the planet Mars, and the lack of water on its surface.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Tides/tides-mola1_small.jpg

answer: Planet V (http://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.php) did it.

You watch too much Sailor moon, woody.

Yet another flood theory:

It came from comet impact (http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/4related.html#c8)

Broken links ! Looks like they are out of business :p

And how is a comet impact going to flood the earth for the duration of a year by means of raining?

Grasping at straws?

And how is a comet impact going to flood the earth for the duration of a year by means of raining?

Grasping at straws?

Comets are made of ice that melts.

Here is the comet link (http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/4related.html#c8) again.

Regardless of what M/B says the link works just fine. There is a horrendous amount of information there. The web site was established Feb 27, 2006.

Here is the physical theory on how the mechanics work.

Comet Induced Worldwide Flood (http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm)

from the source:

A large comet or asteroid impact in a glacier ice sheet produced the Biblical Great Flood which brought the last Ice Age to an abrupt and sudden end.

There have been several comet incidents in the past 20,000 years that have been evaluated from polar ice-core samples. They resulted in de-glaciation events but none of them as spectacular as the one that ended the last ice age around 9,600 years ago.

9600 BC de-glaciation (http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html)

The Golden Age Project (http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/19giantcomet.html)

From the source:

THE BIBLICAL flood, a central tenet of three of the world’s great religions, was nothing to do with divine wrath: the real cause was a giant comet that hit Earth, according to new research.


Perhaps SkinWalker would like to comment on this claim:


Is the Great Flood Story limited to just the Genesis account in the Bible and Plato’s history of the destruction of Atlantis?

No. Stories of the Great Flood are almost universal among the civilizations on Earth. Anthropologists who study legends and folktales from different geographical locations (China, Babylon, Mexico, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Persia, India, Norway, Wales, Ireland, Indonesia, Romania, Mexico, Peru, Australia, Greece, Tanzania etc.) and cultures consistently have reported one particular group of legends that is common to practically every civilization, the story of the Great Flood. Historians estimate that these legends number into the hundreds. In 95% of the stories, the flood was worldwide; in 88%, a certain family was favored; in 70%, survival was by means of a boat; in 67% animals were also saved; in 66% the flood was due to the wickedness of man; in 66% the survivors had been forewarned; in 57% they ended up on a mountain; in 35% birds were sent out from the boat; and in 9% exactly eight people were spared. The reality of a global Great Flood event is supported by the universal nature of these accounts.

Is there any physical evidence of a Great Flood?

Yes. William Scott Anderson, arrived at this theory independently and even before me. His research was published in 2001 in a book titled "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood". One of the more interesting elements in his book is that he found a proxy in diatoms that support the theory of a Great Flood. Diatoms are a microorganism, a type of plankton that has a silicon shell, which are preserved as fossils. Mr. Anderson realized a global flood should have left a physical record in the geological strata of these tiny sea creatures. He analyzed the strata at the boundary of the end of the last ice age in the middle of the North American continent in Wisconsin and discovered the presence of ocean diatoms in the boundary layer. His book details his methodology and techniques. These details should allow others to scientifically test and validate his findings and spread this research across the entire globe.

Of course, Great Flood Science is in its infancy. Most of these resources are very new on the scenes. Some of them have religion overtones, and some odviously don't.

The only ice sheet that could effect sea levels is the antartic ice sheet.

Shame it is still there and undisturbed. And it couldn't raise sea levels enough to make mountains go underneath the sea level.

Once again Noah's ark story has been proven to be bullshit.

Are you now moving blindly to another detail disregarding the fact that already many parts of the noah's ark story have been disproven?

Just put him in your ignore list. That creature has no logic capabilities at all.
Honestly, I don't know why are you talking with Woody, there's nothing in it for you to gain except the post count. :p

Getting scared I might pass you? ;)

The only ice sheet that could effect sea levels is the antartic ice sheet.

Shame it is still there and undisturbed. And it couldn't raise sea levels enough to make mountains go underneath the sea level.

Once again Noah's ark story has been proven to be bullshit.

Are you now moving blindly to another detail disregarding the fact that already many parts of the noah's ark story have been disproven?


How about ocean diatoms found at the edge of the Wisconson glacier? What's your scientific explanation on how they got there?

Just put him in your ignore list. That creature has no logic capabilities at all.
Honestly, I don't know why are you talking with Woody, there's nothing in it for you to gain except the post count. :p


Well if it isn't the eye of horus. He put me on his ignore list because he was absolutely wrong with his false charges. Should I pull up the thread to show everyone?

How about ocean diatoms found at the edge of the Wisconson glacier? What's your scientific explanation on how they got there?

Give a proper reference.

Getting scared I might pass you?
No, I know you will for some time now, just look at the statistics. :D
Hopefully not before I can sit on THE throne for a few days though. :mad:

You've been warned, my minions are tunneling below your palace as we speak.
Should you pass me before I pass tiassa it will be one monkey less on this rock. :D j/k

Give a proper reference.

I already did.

Explain how there is no evidence for a flood in any glacier. Kind of strange for a worldwide event that flooded everything.

I already did.

Where? And explain how a world wide flood left this particular glacier intact and deposited ocean diatoms next to it.

The top of Mount Everest and other places used to be sea floor that was pushed up over millions of years.

The moon is about 4.5 billion years old.

Noah could not have survived a catastophic worldwide tidal surge, especially in such a large boat. Maybe with a life vest and a survival suit, or a tiny boat, or a submarine, but that's about it.

Large wooden boats designed without the benefit of modern hydrodynamic principles don't survive huge storms very well. Noah wasn't even a fisherman.

Woody, you lazy shit. I had to go through all your fucking links to find this as evidence:

Is there any physical evidence of a Great Flood?

Yes. William Scott Anderson, arrived at this theory independently and even before me. His research was published in 2001 in a book titled "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood". One of the more interesting elements in his book is that he found a proxy in diatoms that support the theory of a Great Flood. Diatoms are a microorganism, a type of plankton that has a silicon shell, which are preserved as fossils. Mr. Anderson realized a global flood should have left a physical record in the geological strata of these tiny sea creatures. He analyzed the strata at the boundary of the end of the last ice age in the middle of the North American continent in Wisconsin and discovered the presence of ocean diatoms in the boundary layer. His book details his methodology and techniques. These details should allow others to scientifically test and validate his findings and spread this research across the entire globe.

So your evidence is that a crackpot found ocean diatoms in WISCONSIN!!!! I don't really know where to start with this fucked up fuck story. I will remind you of the fact that fucking wisconsin doesn't constitute the world. But I guess you have lost your ability to think critically a long time ago. If you ever had it.



I do have a scientific explanation why there are diatoms in wisconsin. There used to be a sea there. Not because there was a flood.

case solved.

The top of Mount Everest and other places used to be sea floor that was pushed up over millions of years.

The moon is about 4.5 billion years old.

Noah could not have survived a catastophic worldwide tidal surge, especially in such a large boat. Maybe with a life vest and a survival suit, or a tiny boat, or a submarine, but that's about it.

Large wooden boats designed without the benefit of modern hydrodynamic principles don't survive huge storms very well. Noah wasn't even a fisherman.

It was made from a type of wood that is like balsa wood containing air pockets, and was coated with tar or pitch inside and out.
It wouldn't sink if it were upside down full of water.
Get your facts straight before you bring your sorry mess to town boy...!
Your moon full of cheese and noah needing a life vest...
Get outta here!

I
It wouldn't sink if it were upside down full of water.

I'm sure that the inhabitants would drown though if that would be the case.

I do have a scientific explanation why there are diatoms in wisconsin. There used to be a sea there. Not because there was a flood.

Case Solved

Having a sea there is not called a flood? OK

What do you think about Mt. Everest only being 1/10 th of 1 per cent of the world's diameter? Do you think the earth is a perfect sphere?

And the crust of the earth is supported by molten rock. How thick is the earth's crust at the thickest point, maybe 60 miles?

I will remind you of the fact that fucking wisconsin doesn't constitute the world. But I guess you have lost your ability to think critically a long time ago. If you ever had it.

Neither was the entire world at the edge of a glacier -- the sensible place to be looking.

If the sea shells found on Everest were deposited by a flood, then we would find them everywhere, but they are only found in places where millions of years ago there used to be an ocean. Obviously, the "place" isn't exactly where it is now, relative to the poles.

Similarly, if there was a global flood, we would find minerals and sediments that originate all over the planet in a distinct layer in places where erosion or other geologic forces wouldn't disturb them, such as the 450,000 year old ice sheets in greenland, and the bottom of ocean plains.

Having a sea there is not called a flood? OK

Nope.

And what's more, a flood is not a global flood. I know it is difficult for you believer types to understand these concepts, that apples are not pears, but if you are not under strain to grasp at straws the world is actually quite a diverse place.

OK, Visitor, so the boat wouldn't sink, but neither would it keep all those animals above water, many of whom could not swim. I bet the water was cold, too.

Nope.

And what's more, a flood is not a global flood. I know it is difficult for you believer types to understand these concepts, that apples are not pears, but if you are not under strain to grasp at straws the world is actually quite a diverse place.

Yeah, it's diverse alright...
There's nuts and fruitcakes and all kinds of atheists, and scientists...so-called, guessing at their origins.
They believe in anything for truth without some kind of absolute to stand on.
They paint their stories, that always will be changin'...
Any color you like.

It was made from a type of wood that is like balsa wood containing air pockets, and was coated with tar or pitch inside and out.
It wouldn't sink if it were upside down full of water.
If the pressure of the rain falling down snaps the wood in half, then, well, there's nothing left to float except loose boards, and the only things that would survive would mostly be in the terms of some mammals, some birds, and some reptiles. Most things would've drowned.

Nope.

And what's more, a flood is not a global flood. I know it is difficult for you believer types to understand these concepts, that apples are not pears, but if you are not under strain to grasp at straws the world is actually quite a diverse place.


As I said before, the flood or lack thereof is not a deal-breaker for me.

Now to address that jerk named Avatar:

I said:

99% of all species are now extinct.

Avatar responded:

99% of what?
Woody, you are a joke and not worth wasting time on you.
one more religious moron ignorelisted

Well what is a reasonable per centage of all species that are now extinct?

Is this really such a stupid statement?

That is why I am on his ignore list, and I don't figure he is worth listening to either -- all 11,000+ junk posts -- what's he shooting for, the most posts on sci-forums? It just proves he's got the biggest mouth -- that's all.

If the pressure of the rain falling down snaps the wood in half, then, well, there's nothing left to float except loose boards, and the only things that would survive would mostly be in the terms of some mammals, some birds, and some reptiles. Most things would've drowned.

If the pressure of all the regrets snap the supports of your mind without anything of absolute truth to gird it up, theres nothing left of it but a drooling husk....and nothing of the host survives.

What the fuck are you talking about.
Okay, the ark was supposedly made from WOOD, correct? For rain to flood the world in the span of 40 days and nights, it would have to fall at a constant rate. That rate would have rain falling down as great velocity and at high pressure. The pressure of that much rain falling on those wooden planks would snap the damn things in half like a graham cracker. The boat would collapse and most things would die, if not from drowning, then from predatory sea creatures like sharks.

If the pressure of all the regrets snap the supports of your mind without anything of absolute truth to gird it up, theres nothing left of it but a drooling husk....and nothing of the host survives.

a drooling husk -- Good one flying-V

like what's left after a spider has lunch.

Okay, the ark was supposedly made from WOOD, correct? For rain to flood the world in the span of 40 days and nights, it would have to fall at a constant rate. That rate would have rain falling down as great velocity and at high pressure.The pressure of that much rain falling on those wooden planks would snap the damn things in half like a graham cracker. The boat would collapse and most things would die, if not from drowning, then from predatory sea creatures like sharks


GENESIS 6:14
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
GENESIS 6:15
15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.


Roughly the size of an aircraft carrier....
Gopher wood floats and it was pitched within and without...

The rain was the least of Noah's worries...
One of his sons or their wives brought something over that spawned unbelivers, and giants all over again.
And they obviously can type....

"99% of all species are now extinct."

Is this really such a stupid statement?


Nope. It's estimated that 90%+ of all species that ever existed are extinct.

And millions of years ago the entire middle section of north america was an inland sea.

Impossible. Ships of that size only became possible with better contruction materials, i.e iron and steel.

And as I said, no matter what kind of wood it was, the pressure of the rain falling would snap it in half. As in, break it. Boat would sink if it split in half, no matter what it's made from.

And what the fuck about with giants and whatnot? Sure, there were tall people, about nine feet max, but that's not a giant, really. Just depends on ethnic variation.

What the fuck are you talking about.
Okay, the ark was supposedly made from WOOD, correct? For rain to flood the world in the span of 40 days and nights, it would have to fall at a constant rate. That rate would have rain falling down as great velocity and at high pressure. The pressure of that much rain falling on those wooden planks would snap the damn things in half like a graham cracker. The boat would collapse and most things would die, if not from drowning, then from predatory sea creatures like sharks.

It's an easy calculation. To cover the entire surface to 29,000ft (Mt. Everest) in 40 24 hour periods would take a rainfall of:

40*24 = 960hrs

29000ft/960hrs = 30ft/hr = 6 inches/minute = 1 tenth inch / sec.

This is equivalent to a steadily running faucet at moderate pressure into a 1 sq inch container. You can find out exactly what it's like using your kitchen sink and a stopwatch and a variety of different sized containers.

Impossible. Ships of that size only became possible with better contruction materials, i.e iron and steel.

And as I said, no matter what kind of wood it was, the pressure of the rain falling would snap it in half. As in, break it. Boat would sink if it split in half, no matter what it's made from.

And what the **** about with giants and whatnot? Sure, there were tall people, about nine feet max, but that's not a giant, really. Just depends on ethnic variation.

Golieth at 9'3" was just a small throw-back to the genetic strain of giants.
King Og was possibly 12' or greater...he had a bed 14'.
Then there's the anakim ...
By Golieth's day the real strain had been exterminated , and was pretty watered down
Golieth came from some that excaped into Gath from Joshua's day and he was found in that same town 800 years later.

Just a small genetic throwback...they have people today that are nearly 9'.
A museum in Texas has the thighbone of a humaniod male that would make the giant over 30'...
Burial pits all over the U.S. have 12' skeletons with red hair still on them, ...the indians called them the Se'Ti'Ca's, and made coats out of their red har.
They were exterminated when all the indian tribes banded together to defeat them just before the "white" man arrived.
.
9' was nothing...do your homework on a subject before you try to make a major out of a minor.

A museum in Texas has the thighbone of a human male that would make the giant over 30'...

No they don't.

Burial pits all over the U.S. have 12' skeletons with red hair still on them,

No there aren't.

They came over in the genes of one of the women Noah's sons married or something like that.

Poppycock. They don't exist. If they do, where's the evidence. I'm in Texas, I'll be happy to go look at it.

9' was nothing...do your homework on a subject before you try to make a major out of a minor.

Quit making shit up or repeating the made up shit of others.

Nope. It's estimated that 90%+ of all species that ever existed are extinct.

And millions of years ago the entire middle section of north america was an inland sea.

How can that be known anyway? There are probably many species that have come and gone without leaving evidence.

So it's only the hominids that have fared so poorly in such a short period of time too. So much for human adaptation.

By the way, I got the 99% statistic from S/G.

This from University of Connecticut reference (http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/extinctions.pdf ) lecture notes:

It is the fate of most living things eventually to go extinct. The species diversity now is almost certainly greater than it ever has been in the past, but paleontologists tell us that more than 99% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct.

It's a treehugger reference. So in conclusion I guess the statistic must depend on your agenda. Avatar odviously is not a tree-hugger.

Here's one for Skinwalker:

Stories of the Great Flood are almost universal among the civilizations on Earth. Anthropologists who study legends and folktales from different geographical locations (China, Babylon, Mexico, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Persia, India, Norway, Wales, Ireland, Indonesia, Romania, Mexico, Peru, Australia, Greece, Tanzania etc.) and cultures consistently have reported one particular group of legends that is common to practically every civilization, the story of the Great Flood. Historians estimate that these legends number into the hundreds. In 95% of the stories, the flood was worldwide; in 88%, a certain family was favored; in 70%, survival was by means of a boat; in 67% animals were also saved; in 66% the flood was due to the wickedness of man; in 66% the survivors had been forewarned; in 57% they ended up on a mountain; in 35% birds were sent out from the boat; and in 9% exactly eight people were spared. The reality of a global Great Flood event is supported by the universal nature of these accounts.

So is this crapola?

I suppose you think the bible is made up too...?
Sure, not just once but many times, written and re-written, edited, abridged, translated and obfuscated.

What is the lesson of Noah?

How can that be known anyway? There are probably many species that have come and gone without leaving evidence.
That's why they call it an ESTIMATE.


So it's only the hominids that have fared so poorly in such a short period of time too. So much for human adaptation.


WTF? Most species transitional forms are short lived. Hence the term "transitional". As hominids, we haven't fared so poorly. Your arguments are getting weaker Woody.

Here's one for Skinwalker:

So is this crapola?

The bulk of it may be accurate but this part:

The reality of a global Great Flood event is supported by the universal nature of these accounts.

is complete crapola. All these accounts support is the likelyhood of a relatively common origin of a local flood tale that has good story value and has therefore spread easily.

Here's one for Skinwalker:



So is this crapola?
Oh, that's an easy one. There are floods and tsunamis all the time, and most human settlements are near water.

That's why they call it an ESTIMATE.



WTF? Most species transitional forms are short lived. Hence the term "transitional". As hominids, we haven't fared so poorly. Your arguments are getting weaker Woody.

But they are species, never-the-less, and 15 of man's relatives are now dead, leaving humanity as the sole remant of both a species and a genus.

What do you think about the University reference I provided? Is it an exaggeration so we can all hug a tree? Higher extinction rates provide more touchy-feely value you know. :rolleyes:

What do you think about the University reference I provided? Is it an exaggeration so we can all hug a tree? Higher extinction rates provide more touchy-feely value you know. :rolleyes:

I think its probably accurate. For over 3.5 billion years of life on this planet species have been coming and going as a natural part of the evolutionary drama. There's no agenda here. Just educated estimates based on observations.

I think its probably accurate. For over 3.5 billion years of life on this planet species have been coming and going as a natural part of the evolutionary drama. There's no agenda here. Just educated estimates based on observations.


So an extinction statistic of 99%+ is as good a guess as 90%+?

Apparantly Avatar has his own opinion that isn't shared by anyone else. ok then you answered the question -- he's just being a jerk.

I suppose you think the bible is made up too...? (I hope not)

All available evidence indicates it *is* made up in as much as any good work of human literature. The bible is a compendum of Near Eastern myths that were "borrowed" by its Jewish and early Christian cultists. There is plenty of evidence to support my claim, and I'll be happy to share it if you'd like.

But back to your claims: you still didnt' answer "where" the alleged artifacts of "giants" are. If you can't give a proper source, its very clear that you are a liar and willing to make shit up just to justify your missguided beliefs and superstitions.

Like John said; "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come"

Like Fred Flinstone said: "yaba daba doo." Both are equally valid quotes from equally real entities with equally real verifications.

Here's one for Skinwalker:



So is this crapola?

I'd like to see the source so I can see how they quantify those percentages, but even if they're accurate I wouldn't doubt them. Most cultures *do* have stories and myths that surround floods. Many of them global. Since the earliest humans, people have been li