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

[Akhenaten]

Yet, we have examples of fossilized land animals. So clearly, the process is possible for land animals and NOT just marine life. As such, your comment above is simply wrong.

Then where are all the land animal fossils in the mountain area of Lebanon where they are finding the fish fossils

Why aren't there any whale fossils in amongst the fish, squid and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru?

Please be aware, DOC, that there are going to be supplementary whale-related question after you answer this one, including some about the different dietary requirements of toothed and baleen whales and some others about the narrow range of water temperatures which some whales need in which to live.

(20% of world's fish fossils, at least according to a Globe Trekker show).

You have no idea how comical your use of "references" like this is, do you?

Don't they have land animals in that area?

What does Globe Trekker have to say about it?


And since we're having a nice little Q&A session, here's one that's been outstanding for quite some time:

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.

 

[pakeha]

...Apart from anything else, you've now put yourself in the position of having to explain why we didn't end up with oceans, lakes and rivers full of nothing but bull sharks. ..

The least of Pharaoh's servants is still trying to cope with the image of swimming corals and volcano-ejected tunnelweb spiders raining down from the skies.
The image of the local streams here seething with bullsharks is too, too much on a post-Saturday night morning.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

That's your source?
An 80 year article from the National Geographic?
Seriously?

I take it you have more recent evidence that disproves that article then?
Remember, we're still considering Tacitus as one of the best sources of Roman history, and his articles are 2000 years old.

Also, look at this.

It's a 'Venus figurine' and is made from mammoth ivory. It was found near Schelklingen, Germany and is known as the 'Venus of Hohle Fels' (after the cave it was found in) and is dated to between 35,000 and 40,000 years ago, placing it in the 'upper paleolithic'. This is so long ago that Neanderthals still existed.
Then there's this.

The famous 'Venus of Willendorf', carved from a type of limestone, found in Lower Austria near the city of Krems and dated to around 25,000 years ago.
We can see an obvious similarity. Almost all the early Venus figures have large or drooping breasts, such as a woman who has already had children would have.
They are generaly small, but never seem to be made to stand up and they are quite often very smooth to the touch in places, as if someone has worn it smooth with constant handling. This could suggest that it was something that was considered to have been of enough importance that it would be carried around with people.

Now take a look at this

This is an 8000 year old Venus Figurine that was found in Samarra, Iraq. Like the other two earlier Germanic examples I showed you, it's legs come to points rather than feet and it's arms are placed in the same position, under the breasts.

Now, what does that suggest to you?
To me it suggests that some form of cultural exchange went on from Northern Europe to the Middle east for a very long time before civilisation was developed. Which, to me, makes sense, after all, we know that prehistoric man was nomadic and moved around a lot, we know that the human species started in Africa and migrated around almost the entire globe. Surely it makes sense to consider that different cultural groups of nomadic people would occasionaly bump into each other and exchange goods and ideas and in this way goods and ideas could travel great distances?

Remember, I never said that prehistoric cultural exchange 'definately' happened, I just said that there is 'strong evidence' that it did.

Another example is ritual burial. The earliest undisputed human burial, discovered so far, are the human skeletal remains stained with red ochre that were discovered in the Skhul cave at Qafzeh, Israel which have been dated to 100,000 years ago. By 40,000 years ago, this style of burial was also carried out in Europe, including the use of Ochre in the ritual.
http://www.mikroarkeologi.se/publications/ch11_Ilga.pdf

Well, SB, if you're not happy with the bull sharks, there's always sea pigs, as featured in the video linked to in this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9200901&postcount=19

Surely the same stands for sea pigs too?
As Genesis 6:17. says.
"And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish.

That doesn't leave room for any surviving creatures of the flood apart from those on Noah's Ark

As an aside, we've yet to consider how those denizens of the deeps survived in the ark.

Precisely, although I suppose the religious could always claim it was a miracle

 

[pakeha]

I take it you have more recent evidence that disproves that article then?
Remember, we're still considering Tacitus as one of the best sources of Roman history, and his articles are 2000 years old.

Also, look at this.
[qimg]http://ucsbvrc.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/venus-of-hohle-fels.jpg[/qimg]
It's a 'Venus figurine' and is made from mammoth ivory. It was found near Schelklingen, Germany and is known as the 'Venus of Hohle Fels' (after the cave it was found in) and is dated to between 35,000 and 40,000 years ago, placing it in the 'upper paleolithic'. This is so long ago that Neanderthals still existed.
Then there's this.
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Venus_von_Willendorf_01.jpg/180px-Venus_von_Willendorf_01.jpg[/qimg]
The famous 'Venus of Willendorf', carved from a type of limestone, found in Lower Austria near the city of Krems and dated to around 25,000 years ago.
We can see an obvious similarity. Almost all the early Venus figures have large or drooping breasts, such as a woman who has already had children would have.
They are generaly small, but never seem to be made to stand up and they are quite often very smooth to the touch in places, as if someone has worn it smooth with constant handling. This could suggest that it was something that was considered to have been of enough importance that it would be carried around with people.

Now take a look at this
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/FemaleStatuetteSamarra6000BCE.jpg/220px-FemaleStatuetteSamarra6000BCE.jpg[/qimg]
This is an 8000 year old Venus Figurine that was found in Samarra, Iraq.

Now, what does that suggest to you?
To me it suggests that some form of cultural exchange went on from Northern Europe to the Middle east for a very long time before civilisation was developed. Which, to me, makes sense, after all, we know that prehistoric man was nomadic and moved around a lot, we know that the human species started in Africa and migrated around almost the entire globe. Surely it makes sense to consider that different cultural groups would occasionaly bump into each other and exchange goods and ideas?

Remember, I never said that prehistoric cultural exchange 'definately' happened, I just said that there is 'strong evidence' that it did.

Another example is ritual burial. The earliest undisputed human burial, discovered so far, are the human skeletal remains stained with red ochre that were discovered in the Skhul cave at Qafzeh, Israel which have been dated to 100,000 years ago. By 40,000 years ago, this style of burial was also carried out in Europe, including the use of Ochre in the ritual.
http://www.mikroarkeologi.se/publications/ch11_Ilga.pdf

"I take it you have more recent evidence that disproves that article then?"
It's YOUR claim, not mine. It's for you to source it.
Again, it that the best you have?

Of course the Botero ladies are fun to speculate about and yes, I enjoyed your post about them and yes, the German and Austrian examples are considered to pre-date the end of the last glacial period.
But I don't quite see how they tie into getting 'news' of coastlines rising over generations in the Middle East to Northern Europe.

In any case, you missed the examples from Malta.

"...Remember, I never said that prehistoric cultural exchange 'definately' happened, I just said that there is 'strong evidence' that it did. ..."


What you said was this

"...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. "

How do the ladies and the early amber specimans imply trade routes rather than immigration or raiding parties?
Why do you think there were trade routes 40,000 BCE?

 

[SlackerBabbath]

"I take it you have more recent evidence that disproves that article then?"
It's YOUR claim, not mine. It's for you to source it.

Which I did, it's not my fault if you don't like the source simply because it's 80 years old. If I'm supplying you with a source that you asked for, then surely if you have a genuine problem with it it's up to you to give a reasonable reason why you have a problem with it?

again, it that the best you have?

Hey, even that wasn't easy to find.
And no, it wasn't the best I have, as you can see, I also included stuff about Venus Figurines and ritual burial.

Of course the Botero ladies are fun to speculate about and yes, I enjoyed your post about them and yes, the German and Austrian examples are considered to pre-date the end of the last glacial period.
But I don't quite see how they tie into getting 'news' of coastlines rising over generations in the Middle East to Northern Europe.

Well, I'm suggesting that it's a possibility that there was trade and cultural exchange going on between nomadic people over vast areas, so obviously I'm also suggesting that news of rising coastlines may have also been past along in the same way.

In any case, you missed the examples from Malta.

"...Remember, I never said that prehistoric cultural exchange 'definately' happened, I just said that there is 'strong evidence' that it did. ..."


What you said was this

"...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. "

How do the ladies and the early amber specimans imply trade routes rather than immigration or raiding parties?
Why do you think there were trade routes 40,000 BCE?

Would you prefer it if I used a different term to 'trade route'?
The intention of my post was simply to mention that prehistoric nomadic people appeared to talk to each other and exchange goods and ideas, that this appears to have gone on for a very long time and that news of coastal events could possibly be carried a very long way to remote areas in such a fashion. Unless people were personaly moving thousands of miles, we are probably talking about the stories of coastal events changing hands many times, and probably over many generations, which obviously invokes the 'Chines Whispers' effect. A rise in sea levels would naturaly be a world wide phenomina so we could expect to see news of rising sea levels travel inland from all sorts of coastal areas, not just from the Middle East.

Now, we have evidence that many years of rising sea levels might have eventualy caused natural sills or dams to break, suddenly flooding areas like the Persian Gulf and the Black Sea. We know that the earliest flood story to be written down (that we know of) was the Sumerian version about a flood hero called Atrahasis, which was about a 'localised' flood and which was altered slightly (same god, same plot, different flood hero) by the Babylonians in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which again was altered slightly (different god, same plot, even down to birds being sent to look for dry land, different flood hero) by the writers of Genesis. So the question is, how did a story about a localised flood in the area of Mesopotamia become a story about a 'worldwide' flood?

This is why I'm putting forward this hypothesis, that ancient stories of flooding events from all over the world eventualy made their way back to the Middle east via the methods I've mentioned, so the story became one of a 'worldwide' flood.

Now, apart from the obvious pedanticism with my wording, what exactly is your problem with this general hypothesis? Where does it fall down for you? What contradicting evidence do you have to counter my points?

Please, I'm genuinely interested to know because if I'm wrong, then fine, I'm wrong and I can stop investigating this line of enquiry.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This DOC person you're all talking to...?

 

[Akhenaten]

This DOC person you're all talking to...?

Umm, yeah . . . what the hell this Venus de Neanderthal stuff is about I don't even.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now, apart from the obvious pedanticism with my wording, what exactly is your problem with this general hypothesis? Where does it fall down for you?

It mainly falls down due to having nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

What contradicting evidence do you have to counter my points?

Oddly enough, Genesis, which despite being little more than a fairytale is at least on-topic.

Please, I'm genuinely interested to know because if I'm wrong, then fine, I'm wrong and I can stop investigating this line of enquiry.

I think you should continue with your investigations and if you feel so inclined then maybe even start a thread here to discuss them.

It's bound to end better than derailing this one is likely to.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

It mainly falls down due to having nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Of course it has something to do with the thread, it's relevant because we are discussing the Biblical flood, which appears to be a story based upon earlier stories, which may have been 'based' upon actual prehistoric events, which could have become the basis for widespread stories via prehistoric nomadic travellers. (hence the Venus Figurines, because pakeha wanted some sort of evidence for cultural exchange between different prehistoric nomadic communities. which I consider Venus Figurines to be.)

Honestly, it's like asking someone to talk about the history of cars without mentioning 'wheels', 'engines' or 'Henry Ford'.

Oddly enough, Genesis, which despite being little more than a fairytale is at least on-topic.

Again, this is on topic because it's relevant to the topic in question.

I think you should continue with your investigations and if you feel so inclined then maybe even start a thread here to discuss them.

It's bound to end better than derailing this one is likely to.

Again, I haven't derailed the thread, I've simply added to it with relevant information.

If you want an example of something that would be derailing the thread, how about a conversation about thread-derailing in a thread about the Biblical flood?

 

[Akhenaten]

It mainly falls down due to having nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Of course it has something to do with the thread, it's relevant because we are discussing the Biblical flood, which appears to be a story based upon earlier stories, which may have been 'based' upon actual prehistoric events, which could have become the basis for widespread stories via nomadic travellers.

What the biblical story might or might not have been based upon is irrelevant.

The thread is about the story as it appears in the bible and whether or not that story has anything to do with fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru.

According to that story there weren't any nomadic travellers spreading the tale because gunderscored drowned them all.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

What the biblical story might or might not have been based upon is irrelevant.

The thread is about the story as it appears in the bible and whether or not that story has anything to do with fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru.

According to that story there weren't any nomadic travellers spreading the tale because gunderscored drowned them all.

Surely talking about the origins of the story is relevant to whether fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru has anything to do with the story?

Can I ask, is it more or less relevant than your mentioning of DOC's refusal to acknowledge the existence of the modern city of Tyre for no other reason than that to do so would falsify an ancient prophecy?

 

[Akhenaten]

Surely talking about the origins of the story is relevant to whether fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru has anything to do with the story?

Are the origins of the fossils and the origins of the story contemporaneous?

Roughly?

Say, within 50 million years?

 

[tsig]

Umm, yeah . . . what the hell this Venus de Neanderthal stuff is about I don't even.

It has something to do with trade routes and women.

OMG have we exposed an ancient female slave traffic.

 

[tsig]

Surely talking about the origins of the story is relevant to whether fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru has anything to do with the story?

Can I ask, is it more or less relevant than your mentioning of DOC's refusal to acknowledge the existence of the modern city of Tyre for no other reason than that to do so would falsify an ancient prophecy?

Well there is the word "Biblical" in the title of the thread.

 

[Dinwar]

"I take it you have more recent evidence that disproves that article then?"
It's YOUR claim, not mine. It's for you to source it.
Again, it that the best you have?

It's not horrible evidence. Artifacts are often how we identify trade occurred. I can't find anything in the way of good Paleolithic trade route diagrams during my five minute Google search (it's all crackpot stuff, and my more serious references are all dealing with North America), but shared statuary, particularly of such a limited theme, certainly implies some sort of exchange of ideas.

The idea is taken seriously in archaeology, based on just such evidence. If that's not good enough for you, that's kinda too bad--it's all we've got to work with. Paleolithic peoples didn't exactly leave diaries lying around.

I still don't agree that this has anything to do with the flood story, but that's because there are far better answers (sea level rise isn't fast enough to generate stories, and the Med. Sea still hasn't dried up so that can't be the story, plus we know there was major flooding along the Fertile Crescent).

 

[pakeha]

I've not been successful in explaining myself, Dinwar.

I'm genuinely interested in knowing what was that 'strong archeological evidence' was of trade routes 40,000 BCE joining the Middle East and Northern Europe.
With emphasis on trade route.

And, of course, what relevance those trade routes would have in the development of the Sumerian flood story, from which the biblical account is derived.
Sorry to be so obtuse!

 

[Dinwar]

Ah, that makes sense. Sorry for the confusion.

I'd like to see more evidence about that as well. Like I said, all I could find is woo.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ugh lived at the end of the Ice Age, somewhere at Europe's Atlantic shoreline.
Ugh: Granpa told me they used to build their tents over there back when he was a child. Now its where the waves crash.
Ugh's son:Ooooooooooh...

Mok lived at the Bronze Age, at the shorelines of the Mediterranean sea, somewhere close to Greece.
Mok: Granpa told me once the sea rose with waves so large they reached our village and drowned almost everibody.
Mok's son: Ooooooooooooh....

Lial lived at the Fertile Crescent.
Lial: Before I married you father there was a big flood, the river spreaded far beyond those palm trees. I was so young... I was afraid the waters would never stop going up.
Lial's daughter:Ooooooooooooh....

Lots of time later someone thought all those accounts were about the same event. Or used them to convert people to another religion.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (large snip) . . . You forgot the shoots where the animal excrement flows upward and then overboard (no, I'm not making that up; it's an argument that was made on this forum).

So, would you call one of these structures a crap shoot?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Well, actually I could. I just didn't bother.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (major snip) . . . Scientific theories - or, for that matter, any intellectually honest theories - stand or fall on the rigors of pass / fail tests. In other words, if something a theory asserts is true, we would expect certain conditions to also be true. If they are not, support for the theory is weakened, and the theory itself may well be completely falsified.

For example, were we to find embedded in rock of the Cambrian strata a mammal fossil, fossilized by the same material and to the same degree a that of a trilobite embedded in the same rock; that would completely falsify evolutionary theory. Notice that I was fairly precise in what I said about the fossils. We're not talking here about possible mixing of fossils from different strata due the their being carried there by a river or a particular flood. Since the fossils would be part of the same rock, fossilized by the same minerals and fossilized to the same degree, accidental mixing as a cause would be eliminated.

Now, I'm proposing that you come up with a pass / fail test for a scientific theory of the flood, one that, should it fail will falsify flood theory, just as a mammal fossilized in Cambrian strata with trilobites would falsify evolutionary theory.

DOC: The hilited question at the end of the quote above still stands. Are you willing to propose a pass / fail test or accept someone else's pass / fail test for a scientific theory of the flood; and are you willing to accept the verdict of such a test - just as I would have to accept the verdict of a mammalian fossil embedded in Cambrian strata along with trilobites - should the result of this this test be a fail?

If you will not subject flood theory to a pass / fail test, then your adherence to it is intellectually dishonest.