Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru

[Dinwar]

As long as you shot the rock yourself...

Greetings,

Chris

Psht. A REAL geologist kills the Earth in hand-to-hand combat!

Of course, I left a rather significant portion of my left thumb in Colorado during such combat once....You know it's bad when there's so much damage it takes a while to feel the pain. And it's really fun to sit there calmly explaining to someone why you're hurrying so much to the cleaning the wound, because you've got about thirty seconds before this hurts like hell and I want it done before that happens.

Well, if it is a local flood, then the Noah story is just a comical farce about a drunken sot who ends up having sex with his daughters.

It's not even a very good one. Abraham's is better.

 

[zooterkin]

SlackerBabbath brought up the issue of other ancient flood accounts similar to the Biblical account of Noah. He is a link that addresses that:

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/2011/06/archaeological-evidence-for-flood.html

These differences aren’t surprising. As Noah’s descendants spread out from the mountains of Ararat (c. 2400–2300 BC) to the four corners of the planet [7] and the story was told and retold over the centuries, conflicting details crept into different strains of the story.

 

[abaddon]

Was Dr. Fuchs actually in Lebanon and why aren't these people named?

They are. They co-authored a paper on the fossils.
Dirk Fuchs, Giacomo Bracchi and Robert Weis.

 

[Christian Klippel]

These differences aren’t surprising. As Noah’s descendants spread out from the mountains of Ararat (c. 2400–2300 BC) to the four corners of the planet [7] and the story was told and retold over the centuries, conflicting details crept into different strains of the story.

So much for the "word of god" part. That chap must be really mumbling like crazy, causing all those people to hear different things to write down.

One might think it was not inspired by some god at all...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[RoboTimbo]

Not necessarily, if you consider other ancient writings used universal language when describing something less than the whole world.

We know. You don't believe the Biblical flood myth. Good on you.

 

[pakeha]

Some do, some don't.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/28/did-moses-write-genesis]...

From your link, speaking of skeptics
"They assumed that Israel's religion was simply the invention of man, a product of evolution, as all other religions are."
It's the first time I've seen something accurate at AiG.

I'm just putting facts out there. Some support a local flood and some support a global flood. ...

And which POV do you support?
Local or global?

 

[joobz]

Hmm, you mean like a cover story for having sex with ones offspring while drunk?

Greetings,

Chris

Yup.
DOC has successfully convinced me that a reading of the flood story should be accompanied by yakkity sax playing in the background.

 

[X]

And which POV do you support?
Local or global?

And when?

Did it happen recently?
Did it happen in ancient times?
Were the mountains formed before, during, or after?
What about continental drift?

You don't get to imply that the flood deposited fish fossils on mountains, then claim the flood was a small local event, then say that you are "just putting facts out there". There's a thing called intellectual honesty, DOC. If an argument does not support your position, why are you bringing it up? This scatter-shot approach of whatever you can find, without consideration to the implications is dishonest, lazy and self-contradictory.

It's obvious you haven't thought out your position at all. Jesus said it, and that's good enough for you.

Fine and dandy. I have no problem with that. If you want to claim it's your belief, and God is magic and big boats etc, that's your right. No one will stop you.

But when you start to try to convince us of these events, based on spurious research, fallacious arguments, misunderstood science, unreliable and heavily biased sources and frequent lies (whether your own or quoted), then you WILL be called out on poor research. You WILL be challenges, asked to explain yourself, and corrected where necessary.

This no-claimer approach you are taking? It's the same thing 9/11 truthers do. No-planers especially. They call it "Just Asking Questions". We call it "JAQing off". They spout boggling volumes of lies, ignorance and incredulity. Often, things they mention contradict other statements they've made and/or reality. Whenver this is mentioned, whenever they are asked to clarify what their artgument is, they always say they're "Just Asking Questions" and "Putting The Evidence Out There". Sound familiar?

It's your thread, DOC.


WHAT, EXACTLY, IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

If you continue to dance around and not substantiate anything, to post contradictory and mutually-defeating sources and stories, we will simply reach that conclusion that you are a dishonest and inept troll for religion. Just one of millions.



WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

If you don't have one, then this thread is over.

 

[Akhenaten]

Posted by DOC
This thread is not about my opinions.

It's exactly what the thread is about.

Your opinion that there's a relationship between the Biblical flood and the fish, squid and shrimp fossils found in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru.

The thread title is a big giveaway.

No, the thread title is: Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru Reply to Thread

Question Marks are not opinions.

And Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils are found in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

OK, DOC.

Since it seems that you have no intention of attempting to deal with Slowvehicle's questions honestly I'll just reproduce the entire conversation that lead up to them being asked and we'll that speak for itself to the importance of your opinions in this otherwise topicless thread.

Just as well.

Can you see how the distribution of animal species, particularly evident in the marsupials of Australia, contradicts the idea that all living creatures disembarked from the Ark in eastern Anatolia some 4,000 years ago?

Then you don't believe the world was one continent at one time and broke up into several continents as many scientists believe.

Not only do you believe that all the mountains in the world came into existence during the last 4,000 years, but that the continents as we now know them also took shape during that period?

Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous this is?

Do you realise, on any level, that for this amount of change to be occurring so rapidly you'd be able to actually see land masses moving about?

Do you realise that the Mediterranean Sea, about which the World's Greatest Navigator, Sir Luke, gave specific directions, wouldn't even have existed at that time?

Do you understand that the escaping Hebrews of Exodus wouldn't have had to contend with the Red Sea because it wouldn't have been there?


Compared to this bizarre fantasy of yours, the Hollow Earth Theory™ is starting to seem feasible.

Not only do you believe that all the mountains in the world came into existence during the last 4,000 years..

No I don't.

Not only do you believe that all the mountains in the world came into existence during the last 4,000 years..

No I don't.

Then I'll ask you again: what is the point you were hoping to make with this thread?


ETA:


Oh, I see. I gather that you're simply taking issue with my use of 4,000 years when in fact your claim is that it was 6,000 years.

Are you saying that Pangea was still one land mass 6000 years ago? And everything moved to where it is since then?

It's a possibility since it would seem the entire earth being under water 150 days and "fountains of the deep" (mentioned in Genesis) shooting out water, could have loosened things up quite a bit for a subsequent sudden shift of land masses.

Yeah, those extra 2,000 years change everything.

Not.

See that emphasised bit of text, DOC?

That's what's called an opinion.

YOUR opinion.

And unless we can establish the chronology in which you believe that led you to hold that opinion then there's nothing to discuss.

Without that chronology the thread, in fact, has no topic at all.

Will you be answering Slowvehicle's questions now or will you continue to thrash around desperately trying to claim that they're irrelevent?

No I don't.

Your intimation that Pangea was one continent as recently as 6K years ago seems to indicate otherwise.

Suppose you lay out a chronology:

In your opinion, when did 'god' create the world?

In your opinion, when was Pangea last a single continent?

In your opinion, when did the "global flood" happen?

In your opinion, when did the orogeny of the Himalayas happen?

Please to put those 4 events in the order you want to be able to claim that they happened, with the dates you want to wish for them.

 

[Akhenaten]

In 5½ years I don't recall DOC ever producing evidence in support of anything he's claimed.

You still don't understand historical evidence.

I am historical evidence, reedcutter.

Why do you think Bart Ehrman gave the opinion that Jesus certainly existed.

In order to sell a few books. It's how he makes his living.

It's called "historical evidence".

No, it's called "off topic".

Check AAH and your infraction record for evidence of this if you don't believe me.

 

[Akhenaten]

If your opinion is that there wasn't a worldwide flood, then you are in disagreement with a literal reading of the Bible.

Not necessarily, if you consider other ancient writings used universal language when describing something less than the whole world.

I have no idea, and even less interest what this "universal language" drivel is about, but I can't help but notice this phrase in the title of the thread:

the mountains of Lebanon and Peru ​

Are you arguing for

• a local flood,
  
  
• a worldwide flood,
  
  
• a flood that only affected South America and Asia Minor, or
  
  
• something even more bizarre?

My money is on "d."

 

[Akhenaten]

Does Bart Ehrman have an opinion on the flood narrative?

I was simply responding to the personal attack of Akhenaten talking about 5 years of my posts . . .

See, there's the thing, DOC.

Pharaoh was talking about your posts, not about you.

. . . which I have a right to do . . .

You've responded to an observation about a lack of evidence in your posts by citing an example a whole swathe of evidence-free posts.

Of course you have a right to do so, but it seems a rather odd course to take.

. . . since his personal attack dealt with other threads.

Other threads, DOC, other threads.

It's not all about you.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Some do, some don't.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/28/did-moses-write-genesis

The majority do, as well you know.
And linking to the words of someone who obviously has a biased opinion because they write for a website that promotes the Book of Genesis as literaly true (even though that contradicts all the evidence) and makes a profit from the donations of fellow 'believers' (and so obviously has a 'vested interest' in promoting Genesis as literaly true) hardly makes for the best argument.

It doesn't on the copies, which seems to happen a lot on ancient writings. That's why other evidence is looked for which I presented in a previous post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9194750#post9194750

So essentially, what you are actualy saying is that you cannot quote me the part in the Book of Genesis itself that names it's author because if it ever did name it's author in the 'original' scripture then that scripture has now been changed and the original version is lost to history, correct?

So, that's now two bones of contention.
Firstly, you're demanding to know who personaly dated what without being able to produce proof of authorship of the book that you base your belief of creation and the Biblical version of the flood event upon, which is surely hypocritical at the least.
Secondly, if that same book has been changed from the original scripture, as you yourself just claimed, then the obvious question to ask is;- How do you know that the changed 'copies' that we read today are still a trustable source?

Also, on the question of fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru being evidence of a flood that once covered those mountains, do you happen to know how mountains are formed?

There are three basic types of mountain, 'volcanoes', 'fold mountains' and 'block mountains' and the formation of all of them involve geological forces pushing land upwards. Can you see what this little fact does to your argument? I offers a 'supported by science' reason for there being fossils of sea creatures on mountains, namely that land that was once sea bed had been pushed up to form mountains. All you have to go on is mythology, so why should we take the word of mythology over 'supported' evidence?

Let me ask you something. If the fingerprints on the trigger of a gun traced the person who was the last one to fire a murder weapon, and if that person then blamed a mythological figure for the murder in question, who would you believe, the phorensic scientists who provided the evidence taht suggests that he did it or the guy who claimed that a mythological figure did it instead?

 

[Mojo]

Yeah, but we still don't know who the "actual person" was who estimated the fossils to be 95 million years old. There must be a name, but we don't have one. And it's already been mentioned about the problems with carbon dating marine life and very old material.

And it's already been mentioned that you dishonestly added the word "Carbon" to Gawdzilla's post so that you could attack that particular strawman.

 

[Mojo]

This thread is not about my opinions.

Posted by DOC
This thread is not about my opinions.



No, the thread title is: Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru Reply to Thread

Question Marks are not opinions.

Do it once more and you'll hear a cock crow.

And Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils are found in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

And they are nothing to do with your mythical flood. That is also a fact.

 

[SezMe]

c. a flood that only affected South America and Asia Minor, or

I think DOC should go with this one. After all, if god can make a flood, there's no reason that he can't suspend the laws of gravity so that "water seeks its own level" doesn't apply for a while. See gravity was very, very weak in those ares and damn strong elsewhere. Hence, ..... (ok, ok, I'll stop now)

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Are you arguing for

• a local flood,
  
  
• a worldwide flood,
  
  
• a flood that only affected South America and Asia Minor, or
  
  
• something even more bizarre?

My money is on "d."

To be fair, there is plenty of evidence for a 'worldwide' flood. But we're not talking about a flood that covered all trace of land all over the world, as the Biblical version states, we are talking about worldwide sea levels rising at the end of the last ice age causing coastal flooding all over the world.

Still, it's easy to imagine such events as being exaggerated and embelished over a few thousand years of the story being told and retold (what we call the 'Chinese Whispers' effect) until it becomes more mythology than fact.

 

[Christian Klippel]

To be fair, there is plenty of evidence for a 'worldwide' flood. But we're not talking about a flood that covered all trace of land all over the world, as the Biblical version states, we are talking about worldwide sea levels rising at the end of the last ice age causing coastal flooding all over the world.

Still, it's easy to imagine such events as being exaggerated and embelished over a few thousand years of the story being told and retold (what we call the 'Chinese Whispers' effect) until it becomes more mythology than fact.

Only problem with this is the fact that back in those days they had no comms satelites to spread the word, and then what with all the different calndar systems etc., so that even if folks from around the world would travel to a common place, they still would have problems to figure out what specific date the other refers to.

That makes me think it's highly unlikely that some "global flood" of one kind or another was the source of such a story that only got embellished throughout time.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Only problem with this is the fact that back in those days they had no comms satelites to spread the word, and then what with all the different calndar systems etc., so that even if folks from around the world would travel to a common place, they still would have problems to figure out what specific date the other refers to.

That makes me think it's highly unlikely that some "global flood" of one kind or another was the source of such a story that only got embellished throughout time.

Greetings,

Chris

We actualy have strong archeological evidence of prehistoric trade routes that stretched from the Middle East to Northern Europe that predate the rising of sea levels at the end of the last glaciation oeriod by quite a long time. News could easily travel along such routes.

 

[pakeha]

I have no idea, and even less interest what this "universal language" drivel is about. ...

Pharaoh need not concern himself with that as it's completely off topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_language