The eruption caused the snow on the mountain to melt off rapidly. This hot flood, carried many tons of sediment, ash, trees, and soil. Much of this washed into on of the large lakes at the foot of mountain. The sediment and trees settles to the bottom of the lake. The trees trunks sank to the bottom mainly oriented as if the grew where they settled, and buried deep in sediment. New rains washed new layers of sediment that has settled onto the lake bottom.
It will be interesting to see what these trees look like in 50 years. I don't think they will rot away because there is no oxygen and they are buried.
Originally posted by ColettiNo I don't recall which one, that was a long time ago. I started high school there at 12 years of age, so it has been an extra-long time. I do remember that we watched it though . . . every year. Then we were quized over it. This was a small part of a larger apologetics agenda that permeated nearly every facet of the school's curriculum.
Which one, do you recall?
Another video we watched annually was "Hell's Bells." It was all about the evil of rock music. Most of us just enjoyed the good tunes.
Originally posted by Colettiwhich shows only that floods leave evidence, but stresses the point against the biblical worldwide flood : since theres no evidence of it.
The eruption caused the snow on the mountain to melt off rapidly. This hot flood, carried many tons of sediment, ash, trees, and soil. Much of this washed into on of the large lakes at the foot of mountain. The sediment and trees settles to the bottom of the lake. The trees trunks sank to the bottom mainly oriented as if the grew where they settled, and ...[text shortened]... in 50 years. I don't think they will rot away because there is no oxygen and they are buried.
There is however, evidence a a big local flood that hit Sumer about 3000bc and the Flood story is a Sumerian story.
Originally posted by frogstompSounds like you'd like to have your cake and eat it too. If other cultures speak of the great flood - that is evidence. If there is evidence of other massive floods, there is evidence of floods. You can not say there is no evidence and then say there is. It only a matter of what the evidence means.
which shows only that floods leave evidence, but stresses the point against the biblical worldwide flood : since theres no evidence of it.
There is however, evidence a a big local flood that hit Sumer about 3000bc and the Flood story is a Sumerian story.
Originally posted by ColettiThat isn't just an other culture,,,,thats the culture that wrote the the flood story that the bible uses a modified version of.
Sounds like you'd like to have your cake and eat it too. If other cultures speak of the great flood - that is evidence. If there is evidence of other massive floods, there is evidence of floods. You can not say there is no evidence and then say there is. It only a matter of what the evidence means.
You can't have read what I wrote: or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.
so read it again :
"There is however, evidence a a big local flood that hit Sumer about 3000bc and the Flood story is a Sumerian story. " ,,,,me
note the word "local"
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiMultiple accounts of large floods is poor evidence of a single worldwide flood. In fact, if that is the only evidence to go off of then it's next to worthless. It is immeasurably more probable that these are accounts of seperate local floods. Many have likely been exaggerated as legends grow. In order to make them believable, one needs to give solid physical evidence that a global flood occured within the time of these cultures.
Sounds like you'd like to have your cake and eat it too. If other cultures speak of the great flood - that is evidence. If there is evidence of other massive floods, there is evidence of floods. You can not say there is no evidence and then say there is. It only a matter of what the evidence means.
Originally posted by frogstompI'm not misrepresenting your views - I'm am telling you that your interpretation of the data is different from mine. (Mines better 🙂 ) If the flood did occur, you'd expect that other cultures would be aware of it. And guess what! There were. There are many cultures besides the Jews who speak of a worldwide flood. This is evidence for the flood.
That isn't just an other culture,,,,thats the culture that wrote the the flood story that the bible uses a modified version of.
You can't have read what I wrote: or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.
so read it again :
"There is however, evidence a a big local flood that hit Sumer about 3000bc and the Flood story is a Sumerian story. " ,,,,me
note the word "local"
Originally posted by telerionWhat would be remarkable would be if a worldwide flood occured and only the Jews spoke of it. But that is not the case.
Multiple accounts of large floods is poor evidence of a single worldwide flood. In fact, if that is the only evidence to go off of then it's next to worthless. It is immeasurably more probable that these are accounts of seperate floods. Many have likely been exaggerated as legends grow. In order to make them believable, one needs to give solid physical evidence that a global flood occured within the time of these cultures.
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiWhen do you think that the flood occurred?
What would be remarkable would be if a worldwide flood occured and only the Jews spoke of it. But that is not the case.
Also you don't know that that is not the case. Again given the dearth of evidence for a global flood, it is far more likley that these are stories of local flood events that occurred at different times.
Originally posted by telerionI saw one calculation based on the Bible which places the flood at 2300 BC.
When do you think that the flood occurred?
Also you don't know that that is not the case. Again given the dearth of evidence for a global flood, it is far more likley that these are stories of local flood events that occurred at different times.
I don't think I would call it a "dearth" of evidence. But I'm not trying to prove the flood scientifically. I'm more interested in showing that the Bible is not the only evidence of the flood. There is enough scientific evidence so the we can not rule out the flood. And there is no theological reason to doubt the flood occurred.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI would give a possible third explanation for the fact that the flood story is in cultures throughout the globe (not all, but it is quite dispersed). I would postulate that the basic Flood story is a very ancient "proto-myth" with its origins back to the time when Homo Sapiens were a small population in Africa and the Middle East. As Man migrated throughout the world, he took with him this myth and the details changed dependent on the culture (I believe some Native American cultures have a hollow tree as the "ark"😉. I believe that is far more reasonable then a world wide flood which left no geological record or independently arising myths which have many striking similarities.
When do you think that the flood occurred?
Also you don't know that that is not the case. Again given the dearth of evidence for a global flood, it is far more likley that these are stories of local flood events that occurred at different times.
EDIT: I just found this site which has a compilation of flood myths throughout the world. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Originally posted by ColettiThere's never a religious reason for doubting something you want to believe.
I saw one calculation based on the Bible which places the flood at 2300 BC.
I don't think I would call it a "dearth" of evidence. But I'm not trying to prove the flood scientifically. I'm more interested in showing that the Bible is not the only evidence of the flood. There is enough scientific evidence so the we can not rule out the flood. And there is no theological reason to doubt the flood occurred.
2300 B.C.? Are you kinding me? The fact that a Earth-wide flood layer is not obvious to every amateur geologist should be reason to doubt it. A flood of that proportion would not just leave a whisper. It would be indelibly imprinted on almost every aspect of nature. The only defense that some one has for global flood 4000 years ago is simply "God did it." There is absolutely no natural defense. If a flood of those proportions occurred that early ago, you shouldn't have to retreat to the "can't rule it out' argument. You should be able to point to such an obscene abundance of physical evidence that even a rock would be persuaded.
Since we were talking about unbelievable things, how unbelievable is it that both the Chinese and the Egyptians were able to tread water for a year? Then when they were done with that, they went right back to recording history without ever mentioning the problem with the plumbing.
Of course, that's just one of the enormous number of problems with a the hypothesis that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago. Still if one wants to argue "Goddunnit," then they're air tight. Hell, the whole earth could have been engulfed in flames yesterday since God can do anything.