The flood has really taken place!

http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theflood.html

Certain people who believe in the theory of evolution and do not believe that the Flood had ever taken place have often regarded the Flood as a mere legend.

However, it is good to ask whether the Flood really did take place. If we were to make practical observations of the ground and the fossils found therein, and traditional folklore, they would refer quite often to the Flood. These indicate that a large mass destruction had taken place in the immediate past. The following passages will examine these different sources of information, which refer to the Flood.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: Believing in evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Flood. Even atheists can agree on the Flood occuring! It's recorded history predates the bible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure there were floods, we just saw the devastating effects of tsunamis. A flood probably led to the myths of Atlantis and Noah, and the prevelance of flood myths all over the world. People that believe in evolution also believe in floods, even the possibility that there was a big one in recent history near the middle east. So there.

To prove that there was a flood does not disprove evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So what of there was a huge flood?
This does neither prove, nor disprove that the Christian religion is true.

 

Earth was all made of water billions of billions of years. what's the deal with the flood ? continents change all the time.

 

The site is the usual rehash of thanato fossil assemblages, completely ignoring the radically different ages of the examples.

As has been noted by several persons above, there were floods significant floods in the Middle East. While these may have been flooding of rivers such as the Tigris and Euphrates, it seems much more likely that they were a result of the massive rise in sea level at the end of the last ice age. Specifically the flooding of the Persian Gulf, and the breakthrough of the Bosphorus land barrier to turn the Black Sea from an small lake to a true sea, are good candidates.

 

Exactly how did the alleged worldwide flood kill off all the world's sea creatures? How does one go about drowning a fish? Did they find fish fossils on top of large mountains ?

 

Take it to bottom of the Black Sea, where the conditions are anoxic.

 

thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The flood stories refer to the sinking of Atlantis and Lemuria but also to a cosmic flood in the "waters of chaos" (nothingness)

 

No, the flood stories are a remarkable, if distorted recollection of the last time the planet suffered serious rises in sea level as a result of glacial melting.

 

When it is a question of the birth of carbon and oil, we have usually been taught that they have been born as results of slow processes and their forming lasted for millions of years. It is spoken about special Carboniferous, when carbon has been formed especially much.

But how is this matter? Have these substances really been formed already hundreds of millions years ago and has the forming of them lasted also for millions of years or not? If we look at this matter in the light of the next points, they indicate rather, that they have been formed quickly and also quite "in the immediate past", in other words only a few thousands years ago, and also in connection with the Flood, which is mentioned in the Bible. This matter is indicated to us for example by the next points:

The age of carbon deposits and oil wells. The first point is that evidences of the age of carbon- and oil deposits do not refer to the large periods. About this was talked already earlier and for instance, the next two points indicated this matter:

- The pressure of oil wells is so hard (it is ordinary, that oil can gush into the air from the drilled hole in the ground), that they cannot be at most than 10,000 years old. (Chapters 12-13 of prehistory and earth models by Melvin A. Cook, Max Parrish and company, 1966)

- When from carbon strata "from across 250 - 300 millions years" has been found men’s footprints on numerous different areas (for instance Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico and Kentucky) and have been found things and skulls, which belong to man, from these same strata, either man must have been on the earth 300 million years ago or then the carbon strata are really only a few thousand years old. It is more probable, that the latter alternative is true, because even nobody scientist does not believe, that man appeared on the earth 300 million years ago.

The birth speed. Also as far as is concerned forming of oil and carbon, it has not been needed to last a long time. One indication of this is, that in Germany was prepared oil from coal and lignite during the Second World War, and it succeeded well. In the same way in the laboratory has been prepared from one ton of organic waste one barrel oil and it lasted only for 20 minutes (Machine design 14 may 1970).

It has also been possible, that tree and other cellulose materials have been changed into carbon or material like carbon only in a few hours. This indicates that when the conditions are right, these materials can be born quite quickly. It is not at all required millions of years, so that those materials could be formed.

Evidences of the quickly birth. On its behalf, that carbon and oil were born quickly in connection with the Flood, and not at all slowly during the millions of years, speak still the following points:

- From the middle of carbon strata can be found fossils, for instance trees, which may penetrate several strata. These fossils could not be born in any way and appear, if the carbon strata would have been formed during the millions of years.

- On many carbon strata of the globe are found noticeable amounts shell strata of sea animals and fossils of sea animals ("A note on the occurrence of marine animal remains in a Lancashire coal ball", Geological magazine, 118:307, 1981 and Weir, J. "Recent studies of shell of the coal measures", Science progress, 38:445, 1950).

In the same way from carbon has been found plants, which do not even grow on swamp areas. These finds seem clearly to refer to the Flood, which has transported marine animals among ground plants and caused other similar movement.

- As a problem in the birth of carbon and oil is that it does not happen nowadays. They are not formed even in the tropical countries, even though conditions in those countries would be supposed to be suitable; on the contrary, the plants there only putrefy quickly and from them is not formed any oil or carbon.

Therefore it is indeed only possibility, for example for the birth of carbon, only such nature catastrophe, which suddenly covers the plant waste under the ground masses, and leaves it to the hard pressure and free from oxygen space, in which it can’t be ruined (The hard pressure and free from oxygen space have been regarded as necessary for the birth of carbon. In addition to this, the bacteria cannot decompose plant waste in the free from oxygen space.) The Flood, which accumulated mud and ground masses one on the other, can only in the best way explain this kind of event. (For example Pentti Eskola writes in his book "Muuttuva maa", p. 114: "Under and above the coal-seams there are, such as has been said, regularly clay stones, and from the structure of them can be seen, that they have been stratified from water.")

 

PetriFB, your post is singularily ill informed. You have strung together a sequence of falsehoods, misinterpretations and ignorance. They seem to have been lifted intact from one or more creationist sites.
Warning: Emotional remark approaching.
Don't you retards ever learn?

While some oil does come from the Carboniferous, most oil does not. Coal is particularily common in Carboniferous (Mississipian and Pennsylvanian for you North Americans), not oil.

Your meaning is not exactly clear here. You seem to be saying that their is no evidence that the oil is old. This is not so. The oil is found in rocks whose age is both well established and very old. Perhaps you would care to cite any contrary evidence. I am not aware of any, but am always ready to learn.

Nonsense. You display a total lack of understanding of sedimentology, diagenesis, structural geology, petroleum fluid properties, oil migration, geomechanics, and just about anything connected with the topic. Oil is trapped in rocks because of overlying layers which are impermeable, or of very low permeability. Other factors such as continued subsidence, thermal expansion effects, artesian conditions, clay minerallogy and related osmotic pressures, combine to generate and maintain overpressures for many millions of years.

Extreme nonsense. No such findings have ever been demonstrated. There have been hoaxes and misinterpretations, but no genuine finds.

Irrelevant. The fact that oil might be produced relatively quickly is not evidence that it was produced relatively quickly.

The same argument applies as above. In addition, you are displaying your considerable ignorance for the world to see. What exactly is a material like carbon? Do you realise that cellulose is an organic molecule. i.e. its backbone is a chain of carbon atoms. What do you mean by saying it will change into carbon? Your sentence is almost meaningless.

We have already established that the Carboniferous strata have nothing to do with much of the oil that has formed.
No one disputes that while the Carboniferous strata were being laid down in tropical forests in huge river basins, there were, from time to time, floods that embedded the roots and lower trunks of trees in sediment. We can witness the same process occuring today in the basins of the Amazon and the Congo.

Of course there were. There were frequent (in a geological sense) marine incursions onto these lowlying deltas. New Orleans mean anything to you? This is evidence for the ancient nature of oil, not against.

Wrong. We can examine the character of organic material in buried sediments, and we find a progressive change in the character of these as the sediments get older that is wholly consistent with the generation of petroleum. Also, get away from this dumb idea that oil comes from, and only from, decaying tropical trees.

Please go away. Get an education, then return to report why you were mistaken.

 

The world before the flood never saw rain, or a cloud.
It was balanced perfectly like a terarium, the water evaporated in the heat of the day and condenced and fell as dew at night.
There was so much water vapor in the air that when the earth was knocked off it's axis by a large nuclear explosion, it rained for 40 days striaght.....thats why they find mamoths with fern leaves still in their mouths frozen in solid ice.... the axis of the earth changed so quick.
The children of Cain were very intelegent, but had no revelation from God or the spirit of God to operate it....
They were fleshly, sensual beasts, the giants, the sons of men....posessed of the devil.
The true offspring of Adam and Eve were the sons of God, through Seth's lineage after Cain murdered Abel.
The sons of god had the power of creation in their words, lived by faith....simple lives.
The sons of man...Cains offspring - builded cities, became the articifers of brass and iron....they became scientists and developed technology as they have today, because they had no real faith to live by.
"Some fanatic got a hold of a bomb and blew it" this was spoken by a vinicated prophet of God.
Science today can see something happened and try to say the earth was hit by an asteriod, but it was man....
This is what killed the dinosaurs, not millions but thousands of years ago.
Science has an atheist agenda, if you try to say something like this as have many with plenty of evidence, you get kicked out of their "club".
Dino bones have been unearthed recently still un-petrified, with marrow and red blood cells still intact in the bones...
Dino footprints have been found with human prints right inside them, saying they co-existed...
Science and evolutionist's have their agenda with your childrens minds...they won't change their story no mater what evidence has to be destroyed or "mis-located"...get it?
This isn't the first time we've been given the power of the sun to destroy ourselves with.....read other historical accounts like the India "Veda"...
They talk of a bomb with the power of the sun, so powerful it destroyed completly the armies on both sides of the war, 5000 years ago...
Scienists found a sea of green glass in the very area they spoke of, and they say only the heat of a nuclear explosion could cause the phenomena.

 

Oh, Science found it did they? hence, it must be beyond dispute.

 

*************
M*W: You're delusional.

 

I practicly write you a book, and you dismiss it with a one-liner....

Back to your old tricks eh...? you're getting desperate.

 

*************
M*W: It is you who are playing tricks on yourself.

 

Screw it. I'll go with the short version too. Your delusional. (That's for Visitor, not MW, who is merely annoying in her persistent use of MW: and ********* separators.}

 

On that note I'd like to point people back to my post above, which contains the controversial "Bomb caused the flood" statement.
God usually uses man, when he said "I'll destroy the earth with water"......
He let man push the button.
When He said "I'll destoy the earth with fire this time".....
We, ( The U.S. and The Russian Federation) have 60, 000 hydrogen bombs, each 1000 times more powerfull than the ones used on Japan in WWII.
My money's on He'll let man push the button again.
If you're not right with God or whatever you worship as God, I'd be getting there fast.