Evidence Noah's Flood Happened

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yes, how did a flood of 144,000 square miles or Km become worldwide? That is an area not much bigger than Pennsylvania in the US.

Sea level doesn't just rise in one place.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Sea level doesn't just rise in one place.

In the case of an isolated sea, it does. (assuming 'one place' means the region of the sea.)
In fact, if an inland sea is flooded by global seas, then the rest of the worlds seas fall.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the case of an isolated sea, it does. (assuming 'one place' means the region of the sea.)
In fact, if an inland sea is flooded by global seas, then the rest of the worlds seas fall.

Let me repeat the main points of the story for you and then maybe we can use a little bit of logic.

They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path.


"We went in there to look for the flood," he said. "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under."

Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea.

The black sea was flooded because of water coming from the rising Mediterranean Sea. So if the Mediterranean Sea was rising, then that must mean all the oceans were rising because the Mediterranean Sea is connected to the Atlantic Ocean.

We should all know from simple grade school science that water seeks its own level. So if the old shoreline was 400 feet below the surface, then wouldn't that mean that the Mediterranean Sea had to rise at least 400 feet higher than it was before this event happened?

That would mean a rise all over the world of at least 400 feet because that is where it is today. But according to the Holy Bible the mountains rose and the valleys sank and the waters came down. So this 400 feet higher sea level today must be the new level where it came down to.

When he gives an estimated land area that it must have effected, he is only considering the area around the Black Sea due to the flooding of the Black Sea. The area of the Black sea today is 168,496 sq miles.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Let me repeat the main points of the story for you and then maybe we can use a little bit of logic.

[quote] They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara ...[text shortened]... Sea due to the flooding of the Black Sea. The area of the Black sea today is 168,496 sq miles.

Well, at worse it means anything 400 feet above ground level would not be under water. That kind of refutes your world wide flood hypothesis.

But you still have yet to answer my charge that a real god would never destroy all the land animals on Earth to off a few thousand bad humans when this alleged god who allegedly creates whole universes could not just go POOP and those thousand humans are smoke in the desert. Instead, this merciful god of yours kills ALL the land animals and then leads some of them by two's into the ark, thus condemning all of them including humans to have a greatly reduced genetic diversity, which is one of the strengths of sexual reproduction, making bodies a bit harder for viruses and bacteria to attack each generation, causing those things to evolve to try to attack the latest generation of humans.

So without that genetic diversity, humans and animals alike would be much morel likely to die from diseases. All of that the legacy of the actions of an insane god.

Of course the thing they didn't know was genetic forensics would prove that whole fantasy tale to be false since animals have more genetic diversity than humans in spite of the 'fact' that there were 4 times as many humans on board the ark than animals of each species.

We won't even go into the ridiculousness of dinosaurs on the ark, just limiting ourselves to mammals.

How can you fall for such a patently ridiculous tale? You have to totally ignore so many sciences it makes my head swim.

I think the answer to that question is you are AFRAID of human science, you wish it never had been invented, humanity is getting WAY to uppity and full of real scientific knowledge, ten year old kids are leaving you behind in the sciences now and you fear to hear developments in geology, astronomy, and especially evolution and genetic research, which has proven there never EVER was a time in the history of Earth that animals were down to 2 of all species. The genetic diversity proves that because they know exactly how long it takes for genetic mutations and alterations to take place and you FEAR that knowledge which is why you cannot do anything but try, in vain actually, to destroy evolution and genetic forensics and astronomy and geology and many rock dating sciences in your vain effort to prove really stupid fantasy tales written by people who knew nothing of science and so could convince the savages of the day of the validity of their tales, spreading a world wide flood when at most there was some major flooding going on which these writers expanded to include the entire world, something they had no idea of since they never saw Australia or Antarctica and such, to say nothing of the Americas or Hawaii or Malaysia or any of those places, just SAYING to people this flood you saw was all over the world and those people, being totally ignorant of science, swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker and here we are, millennium after millennium later and people are STILL hooked on that stupid story.

It is a real indictment on the alleged intelligence of the human race.

You, a person of the 20th and 21st century should know better but NO, you put your head firmly up your butt AND into the sand in your vain attempt to refute the world of science which has passed you so far behind you can NEVER catch up, especially since you are deathly AFRAID to catch up for fear your stupid dogma will be stripped away and your feel good religion will be destroyed for you.

That fear keeps your mind firmly in the tenth century and I feel sorry for what is left of your mind. It is a sorry excuse for a human brain, unable to think for itself any more, if it ever was, in your eagerness to swallow the whole silly set of tales in the bible.

For instance, did you read the verse in Mathew where your lord himself, Jesus says words to the effect of some of you will still be alive when the rapture happens and Christians will go to heaven?

Telling them quite clearly the rapture and all that garbage will happen in only a few years, NOT 2000 years or 3000 years or 300,000 years or 3 BILLION years.

You have your head securely screwed up your ass and in the sand and you feel GOOD about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the case of an isolated sea, it does. (assuming 'one place' means the region of the sea.)
In fact, if an inland sea is flooded by global seas, then the rest of the worlds seas fall.

The Black Sea is not isolated in that sense and the sea level rise came from melting icecaps, not some sort of transfer of ocean water. This was not a tidal wave caused by the Thera explosion. This was a sea level rise caused by increased global temperatures. The same event filled in the English Channel, the Fjords, and the Persian Gulf (which was Eden before this happened).

There are submerged coastlines all around the world from Britain to India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flandrian_transgression

The first part of the Flandrian, known as the Younger Atlantic, was a period of fairly rapid sea level rise,[2] known as the "Flandrian Transgression" and associated with the melting of the Fenno-Scandian, Scottish, Laurentide and Cordilleran glaciers.

Look at the rise in world sea level ~10,000 years ago on this chart:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, at worse it means anything 400 feet above ground level would not be under water. That kind of refutes your world wide flood hypothesis.

But you still have yet to answer my charge that a real god would never destroy all the land animals on Earth to off a few thousand bad humans when this alleged god who allegedly creates whole universes could not ju ...[text shortened]...

You have your head securely screwed up your ass and in the sand and you feel GOOD about it.

No it doesn't. And you, who believe in no god, does not know what the real God would do.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The Black Sea is not isolated in that sense and the sea level rise came from melting icecaps, not some sort of transfer of ocean water. This was not a tidal wave caused by the Thera explosion. This was a sea level rise caused by increased global temperatures. The same event filled in the English Channel, the Fjords, and the Persian Gulf (which was ...[text shortened]... nce.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html

Since the melting of the ice makes the sea level higher, then if there was a time when there was no ice, then wouldn't that mean that the sea level would have once been higher then?

By/Jessica Vrazilek/AP/May 31, 2006, 3:53 PM

Study: North Pole Once Was Tropical

The Earth went through an extended period of natural global warming, capped off by a supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect even more about 55 million years ago. Scientists already knew this "thermal event" happened, but figured that while the rest of the world got really hot, the polar regions were still comfortably cooler, maybe about 52 degrees on average.

But the new research from the multinational Arctic Coring Expedition found the polar average was closer to 74.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-north-pole-once-was-tropical/

7 February 2011 Last updated at 20:34 ET

Secrets of Antarctica's fossilised forests

By Howard Falcon-Lang
Royal Holloway, London

It may be hard to believe, but Antarctica was once covered in towering forests.

One of the first people to uncover evidence for a once greener Antarctic was none other than the explorer, Robert Falcon Scott.

Toiling back from the South Pole in 1912, he stumbled over fossil plants on the Beardmore Glacier at 82 degrees south.

Professor Jane Francis of the University of Leeds is an intrepid explorer who has followed in Scott's footsteps. She has spent 10 field seasons in Antarctica collecting fossil plants and received the Polar Medal from the Queen in 2002.

"I still find the idea that Antarctica was once forested absolutely mind-boggling", she told the BBC.

"We take it for granted that Antarctica has always been a frozen wilderness, but the ice caps only appeared relatively recently in geological history."

One of her most amazing fossil discoveries to date was made in the Transantarctic Mountains, not far from where Scott made his own finds.

She recalled: "We were high up on glaciated peaks when we found a sedimentary layer packed full of fragile leaves and twigs."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12378934

Originally posted by josephw
I didn't deny the findings of the research. I disagree with the final analysis.

So your analysis of the scientists findings ..where can we go to read them. Are they published?
And in what field did you gain your doctorate?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The black sea was flooded because of water coming from the rising Mediterranean Sea. So if the Mediterranean Sea was rising, then that must mean all the oceans were rising because the Mediterranean Sea is connected to the Atlantic Ocean.

There are two other possibilities.
1. The land obstruction between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea was removed.
2. The Mediterranean Sea was separated from the rest of the worlds seas.

We should all know from simple grade school science that water seeks its own level. So if the old shoreline was 400 feet below the surface, then wouldn't that mean that the Mediterranean Sea had to rise at least 400 feet higher than it was before this event happened?
Sorry, but the grade school you went to was totally useless. What the article says, is that the Black Sea was formerly separated from the Mediterranean, then some event caused it to be connected and water from the Mediterranean flowed into the Black Sea. There is no reason whatsoever to think the Mediterranean Sea rose by 400 feet.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, at worse it means anything 400 feet above ground level would not be under water. That kind of refutes your world wide flood hypothesis.

Actually, the 400 feet was below current sea levels, so at worst it would mean anything above current sea levels would not be under water.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The Black Sea is not isolated in that sense and the sea level rise came from melting icecaps, not some sort of transfer of ocean water.

Not according to the OP.

There are submerged coastlines all around the world from Britain to India.
And in the case of the Mediterranean, is believed by some, to have dried out completely in the past.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are two other possibilities.
1. The land obstruction between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea was removed.
2. The Mediterranean Sea was separated from the rest of the worlds seas.

[b]We should all know from simple grade school science that water seeks its own level. So if the old shoreline was 400 feet below the surface, then wouldn't t ...[text shortened]... to the Black Sea. There is no reason whatsoever to think the Mediterranean Sea rose by 400 feet.

You need to learn to read better. Here is the quote from the article:

"They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea.

It looks like to me that it is the first possibility you mentioned is what they believed happened, because it says that "it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the RISING Mediterranean Sea."

And the new shoreline is now 400 ft higher than the old shoreline.

"We went in there to look for the flood," he said. "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under."

However, I do agree that if this is just a local event, as Ballard claimed, then it could not be the flood described in the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No it doesn't. And you, who believe in no god, does not know what the real God would do.

So you, being the expert on god, you tell ME how we and all the land animals got back the genetic diversity we possessed before this nonsense flood? Did it happen in the first generation? Don't think so, there would have only been what 20 humans max?

So why didn't your so-called god just leave things alone and just off the bad humans instead of punishing all the land animals on Earth just to get to those bad dudes?

That story is so stupid and convoluted it is hard to believe how people can fall for it century after century as if it were real. Just like you think its real.

So how long did it take for Australia to get those aborigines after this so-called flood, for instance? Why don't we have evidence for such migrations? Could it be because they never happened? NAH, that would never occur to you and your bible besodden buddies.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you, being the expert on god, you tell ME how we and all the land animals got back the genetic diversity we possessed before this nonsense flood? Did it happen in the first generation? Don't think so, there would have only been what 20 humans max?

So why didn't your so-called god just leave things alone and just off the bad humans instead of punishin ...[text shortened]... because they never happened? NAH, that would never occur to you and your bible besodden buddies.

The story may seem stupid to you but many people believe it might have really happened because there is evidence of major flooding all over the world. One evidence that I have mentioned before is finding marine fossils on high mountains.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: March 12, 1987

Scientists have found fossils of whales and other marine animals in mountain sediments in the Andes, indicating that the South American mountain chain rose very rapidly from the sea.

Of course these evolution scientist will not admit to a worldwide flood but only that the mountains rose from the see very rapidly. Just like the Holy Bible says, I might add.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The story may seem stupid to you but many people believe it might have really happened because there is evidence of major flooding all over the world. One evidence that I have mentioned before is finding marine fossils on high mountains.

[quote] WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: March 12, 19 ...[text shortened]... y that the mountains rose from the see very rapidly. Just like the Holy Bible says, I might add.

You're quote mining again, which is a form of deception. Why don't you post the rest of Mr Browne's article Ronald?