dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
There were giants on the Earth in those days.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
There were giants on the Earth in those days.
Even if we assume a 20" cubit, we're talking less than 400 feet of water. A serious local flood, yes--likely devistating, and likely an event that wouldn't repeat itself in a million years. My point was merely that 400 feet of water isn't going to cover all land on the globe, is all. Where I'm living right now wouldn't have even been beach-front property.
It's a demonstration of the local nature of the event, is all.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
FTFY: you made a calculation error. Yes, those numbers really only work in a flood plain / river delta. See my post #618 above. BTW, that's another argument for the Mesopotamian origin and against the Black Sea deluge theory.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
D'oh! I can't math today, apparently.....
Yeah, that means that the Great Black Swamp, where I grew up, wasn't under water (or at least under any more than normal), even if the story was true. Bad news locally, but we're talking thousand-year events, not once-in-Earth's-history events.
They had BUILDINGS over 25 feet high.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Are we in agreement, then? Fossils found in Peru have absolutely nothing to do with a localized flood?
Good.
Good.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
Ziggurats, some dating to 2900 BC.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Duh, yeah. About the alleged Temple of Solomon, 1 Kings 6:2:
That's twice as high as those "mountains" from the flood.
What about these fossils found in the Mountains of Lebanon 2500-3000 feet above sea level in two villages? I saw a Travel show about Lebanon that said 20% of world's fish fossils are in Lebanon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontological_sites_of_Lebanon
Yes, that makes sense. Twenty percent of the Earth's fish fossils are found on less than one hundredth of a percent of the Earth's surface area. Call me skeptical of your claim. Feel free to provide evidence and prove me wrong.
ETA -- I'm just spitballing here, but I suppose the fact that there are more archaeological digs in Lebanon and the middle east versus other places could mean that more fossils have been found. But 2000 times more fossils vs area seems unlikely. Especially considering the source.
Last edited:
The show was Globe Trekker. It was their episode on Beirut and Lebanon.
It had a woman host. She went to the fossil area and a worker there actually found a fish fossil right on camera when he carefully broke open an approx. 10 inch by 10 inch solid rock.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Does this include the Green River Formation?
See, here's the thing: some areas are actually chock full of fossils. There's even a name for them: concentrat lagerstaten (it's German, with an umlat over the second "a" in "lagerstaten"). There are a fair number of them--the La Brea Tar Pits, the Silica Shale, the Green River Formation...and those are the ones in North America that are easiest to get access to. In some of those you literally can't walk without crushing fossils. And I mean that. There's no hyperbole there. Broke my heart at first, and I still feel twinges of remorse when I go to the Silica Shale...Imagine some shell surviving an event so violent that a quarter of a BILLION years later the mountains remain, then surviving being scraped by glaciers, and the Ohio winters (frost wedging is a pain), only to be crushed by the uncaring boot of some tourist without the sense to know what they're destroying.
What you're describing isn't that impressive, even if it occurred the first shot. Odds are, it wasn't.