Nope, not really that interested, particularly when posted by someone with an obvious agenda....Just showing that any potential flood would be impetus for crazy YEC's and others to do what they do best....again.
Floods
- Thread starter timojin
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
There was no agenda. It was, as it happens, a quite reasonable speculation about the Strait of Hormuz. (There was an attempt at one stage, by some people, to sidetrack the discussion into trying - quite irrelevantly - to smoke out Timojin's religious beliefs, but thankfully that failed to derail the thread.)
There has been a very good discussion about various flooding scenarios, to do with the sea level rise at the end of the ice age. In particular there was an interesting scenario involving the progressive flooding of the Persian Gulf, which I for one had not previously been aware of. So Timojin was onto something significant with his question.
An extreme rainfall event, as suggested without any real evidence by that shoddy arxiv paper you cited, occurs nowhere in these scenarios.
So just park your tedious prejudices for a moment and learn some science, can't you?
There is always an agenda with timijonI wouldn't really go on about prejudices my hypocritical friend. You know about people in glass houses?
Again lines of evidence that god botherers quickly latch onto to validate their myths, just as some do with the BB.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This was, and is, a thread about geology, sea level changes and inundations. And a very good thread it has been.
I wouldn't really go on about prejudices my hypocritical friend. You know about people in glass houses?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Everyone now recognises that the epic of Gilgamesh was almost certainly the origin of the biblical flood myth. However that fact, although historically important, does not cast any light on what actual event - if any - inspired the myth.
That event, if there was one (several posters including Spidergoat take the view that there may not have been), is what the thread has been about. This is an Earth Sciences thread, originally about the formation of the Straits of Hormuz.
Although a background cause of sea level rise was assuredly involved, at least for some, the flood stories indicate something significantly more dramatic and unusual as a precipitating event. Sea level rise alone isn't fast enough to trap and drown entire populations of boat-builders and experienced shoreline dwellers.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes, that's obviously the case. The whole business can only be conjecture and there is a spectrum of opinion, all the way from those who don't think any special event inspired it other than say the annual flooding in Mesopotamia, through those who think maybe a large progressive inundation could have inspired it, which was then embellished like a fisherman's tale, and finally to those who think there must have been something very sudden involving actual drowning and boat building. We simply don't have the archaeological evidence to discriminate between these alternatives, so far as I can see.
For me, the interesting thing is what we can say about actual ancient inundations. Which is what the OP was about.
Last edited:
Yes, along with other possible scenarios that has lead to the outrageous build up of the mythical Noah flood, gathering of two of every living thing'the 40 nights and days of deluge and the rest of the nonsense I'm pleased you do not support. Thanks for your eventual support.
I haven't read the whole thread .
But has Charles Hapgood theory on lithosphere shift been mentioned ?
Okay , but mountains had to be created extremely fast though . I mean any sea creature would move to where it could survive . Fossils at the tops of mountains is a puzzle indeed .
That the lithosphere up lifted . From connvection currents , underneath the lithosphere .
By the way timojin , a smooth , even surface on any planet is simply not possible .
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The fossil just means that that rock used to be at the bottom of the ocean. It doesn't mean that that creature briefly lived on a mountain top.
True , to your last statement
Or a flood put these creatures there , not a biblical flood , but a flood caused by the shift of the lithosphere .
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Amen.
Those creatures lived in the oceans, like we have oceans now, died in these oceans, and were fossilized after death at the bottoms of the oceans they lived in - a process still going on, with its various stages visible right now on the ocean bottom and related shore, etc.
What brought them to the tops of the mountains was the opposite of a flood. In a flood the water rises, in this case the land rose.
(the top of Mount Everest is rock made almost entirely of the shells and skeletons of fossil sea creatures, together with some of the mud and sand they fell into when they died)
.wiki said:
Last edited:
I understand your point . And somewhat agree .
But here's a question , sea salt must also be present , how much sea is present where the fossils are found ?
In the rock on top of Mt Everest there is very little salt. It is made of the shells and skeletons of sea creatures, remember.
Salt is not a large component of the mineral compounds making up the skeletons and shells of sea creatures, any more than land creatures. It's easily dissolved in water, which would be a serious defect in a shell or skeleton of an animal that lived in the ocean.
Last edited: