Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Okay, interesting, but I have a little problem with comparing this to Noah's flood. The rate of this flooding would not have resulted in an advancement of the coastline even as fast as a slow walking speed. You could walk in any direction away from the lake and find land. There was no need to "rush" anywhere, much less aboard a boat to escape. In fact, a person would only see a couple of feet of rise in his own lifetime. And if you weren't down there measuring the high tide every day... you would likely not even notice the rise in your lifetime.This is very interesting. It raises many questions about why the earth is the way it is. Questions that have baffled scientist for many years. But there is another theory that explains them.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to produce heavy evaporation. How could warm oceans exist with cold atmospheric temperatures?
It only raises questions if you ignore the very real scientific observations that have been made over the millenia. I do believe in the theory of a global flood. But I base that on human behavior. Thousands of years ago, before the end of the last Ice Age, mankind lived where he lives now, along the ocean coast line, clustered around the mouths of rivers.
As the continental ice sheets melted, the ocean levels rose. We estimate that the ocean levels rose by a couple of hundred feet. There is evidence of villages along the continental shelf in the Black Sea, hundreds of feet under the current water level to support that theory. To a primitive person, suddenly having the ocean raise up and clam your home and then keep going would certainly have been a biblical level disaster. And worldwide there are stories of a great flood.
As far as the creation of the elements go's, there is no support for the claims that they were created in the flood. There just isn't. if it were possible they could recreate them now, and they can't. On the other hand, we can recreate the base elements in atom smashers and that supports the theory of stellar creation.
My personal belief is that the Universe is actually older than current science suggests, but that is a personal belief, I have no evidence to support it.
How does such a thing turn into a "catastrophic flood story"? Simple: It doesn't. Hell, we can't even convince people of evolution today, despite the mountains of evidence, because they can't "see it happening".
People want to mention Chinese flood tales, Sumerian flood tales, craters in the ocean, etc, all happening at different times, and then they try to "snap-fit" them to the flood story. NO, it's much simpler just to assume the flood myth is just that: a myth. It, just like the other Christian myths, is just an amalgam of and fresh take on older myths. Yes, there was a flood that one time. It's a recurring theme, like earthquakes, plagues, locusts, etc.
Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end.
And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories.
Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end.
And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories.
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end.
And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories.
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.
The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end.
And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories.
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.
The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end.
And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories.
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.
Global event?The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.
You are mistaken. The oceanic trenches and the formation of mountains are the result of a cataclysmic event. There is plenty of geological evidence of large deposits of sediment that span the entire Earth. Such deposits can only be explained by large quantities of water in a short period of time. As I mentioned earlier, before we had deep ocean trenches and tall mountains, there was enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of over one mile.The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end.
And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories.
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.
Yes, it was indeed a global event, but no, the entire surface of the Earth was not covered by water. That is a physical impossibility. Once upon a time it was indeed a water world, but through the "magic" of plate tectonics the continents have risen from the depths, and once terrestrial life became a thing, the possibility of ever covering the whole planet with water was a thing of the past. Figure that happened about 1.8-1.9 billion years ago. From that time on there has always been a land mass that the ocean could no longer inundate.
There is evidence to support it. Check out the hydro plate theory.Global event?The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.
very short time?
Mt. Everest a product of the flood?
changed the face of the earth forever?
It seems you make this stuff up as you go along.
You are mistaken. The oceanic trenches and the formation of mountains are the result of a cataclysmic event. There is plenty of geological evidence of large deposits of sediment that span the entire Earth. Such deposits can only be explained by large quantities of water in a short period of time. As I mentioned earlier, before we had deep ocean trenches and tall mountains, there was enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of over one mile.The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end.
And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories.
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.
Yes, it was indeed a global event, but no, the entire surface of the Earth was not covered by water. That is a physical impossibility. Once upon a time it was indeed a water world, but through the "magic" of plate tectonics the continents have risen from the depths, and once terrestrial life became a thing, the possibility of ever covering the whole planet with water was a thing of the past. Figure that happened about 1.8-1.9 billion years ago. From that time on there has always been a land mass that the ocean could no longer inundate.
You are mistaken. The oceanic trenches and the formation of mountains are the result of a cataclysmic event. There is plenty of geological evidence of large deposits of sediment that span the entire Earth. Such deposits can only be explained by large quantities of water in a short period of time. As I mentioned earlier, before we had deep ocean trenches and tall mountains, there was enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of over one mile.The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?The flooding would have begun slow, and then accelerated quite rapidly towards the end.
And, don't forget, these are ten thousand year old memories.
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.
Yes, it was indeed a global event, but no, the entire surface of the Earth was not covered by water. That is a physical impossibility. Once upon a time it was indeed a water world, but through the "magic" of plate tectonics the continents have risen from the depths, and once terrestrial life became a thing, the possibility of ever covering the whole planet with water was a thing of the past. Figure that happened about 1.8-1.9 billion years ago. From that time on there has always been a land mass that the ocean could no longer inundate.
For you who think that it would take a lifetime for the coast to erode, I have a suggestion.....................check out how much land Louisiana is losing every year due to erosion of the swamps and sea level rise.
Another place to look is the erosion of the coastal areas in Alaska.
Took me 30 seconds...Here's another question. From our observations of space, about one star, visible from earth, dies each year. If stars were evolving, shouldn't we also see stars being born? Going back to the 1960's we have photos of the night sky. We have not witnessed one single new star being formed. Almost 50 years, and not one single star born. Explain that.
You are mistaken. The oceanic trenches and the formation of mountains are the result of a cataclysmic event. There is plenty of geological evidence of large deposits of sediment that span the entire Earth. Such deposits can only be explained by large quantities of water in a short period of time. As I mentioned earlier, before we had deep ocean trenches and tall mountains, there was enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of over one mile.The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.
Yes, it was indeed a global event, but no, the entire surface of the Earth was not covered by water. That is a physical impossibility. Once upon a time it was indeed a water world, but through the "magic" of plate tectonics the continents have risen from the depths, and once terrestrial life became a thing, the possibility of ever covering the whole planet with water was a thing of the past. Figure that happened about 1.8-1.9 billion years ago. From that time on there has always been a land mass that the ocean could no longer inundate.
Absolutely wrong. Such deposits are easily explained by plate tectonics. The plates are still moving and are a much better explanation than a global flood. In fact, such flooding would make the landscape more level, as the water pressure pushed down and the soil was made more unstable due to saturation.
Plus, many of the mountains are volcanic in origin. The flood, if it had happened, would have no bearing on that.
Another 30 secondsHere's another question. From our observations of space, about one star, visible from earth, dies each year. If stars were evolving, shouldn't we also see stars being born? Going back to the 1960's we have photos of the night sky. We have not witnessed one single new star being formed. Almost 50 years, and not one single star born. Explain that.
Took me 30 seconds...Here's another question. From our observations of space, about one star, visible from earth, dies each year. If stars were evolving, shouldn't we also see stars being born? Going back to the 1960's we have photos of the night sky. We have not witnessed one single new star being formed. Almost 50 years, and not one single star born. Explain that.
The Birth of Stars
It's a mystery therefore...God.How do you kill off all besides a handful of people and still have civilization in the history books at the same time with millions of people?
It’s a mystery.
Now move on and don’t ask those kinds of questions.
Oh, come on! You can't really believe that.You are mistaken. The oceanic trenches and the formation of mountains are the result of a cataclysmic event. There is plenty of geological evidence of large deposits of sediment that span the entire Earth. Such deposits can only be explained by large quantities of water in a short period of time. As I mentioned earlier, before we had deep ocean trenches and tall mountains, there was enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of over one mile.The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.Wha? why? The coastline would, presumably, have grown as the water level rose... that would be quite an acceleration to both overcome the growing coastline with acceleration of flooding. How fast? 5 feet in a lifetime is pretty darn fast, as far as these things go. That fast?
the Black Sea flooding was about 7500 years ago, I thought. but, point taken, in that memories get bastardized completely over that amount of time. In fact, they aren't memories anymore, but myths. How even to trace them to one event? Doing so seems arbitrary... we can point to several flood events all over the world over the last 10,000 years.
As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.
Yes, it was indeed a global event, but no, the entire surface of the Earth was not covered by water. That is a physical impossibility. Once upon a time it was indeed a water world, but through the "magic" of plate tectonics the continents have risen from the depths, and once terrestrial life became a thing, the possibility of ever covering the whole planet with water was a thing of the past. Figure that happened about 1.8-1.9 billion years ago. From that time on there has always been a land mass that the ocean could no longer inundate.
No, they are not. Save as a cataclysmic event that took tens of millions of years.
