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

[tsig]

DOC,I am really having a hard time understanding your position, as it seems to drift about aimlessly.

Was the flood real or not?
By real, I mean a world wide flood that killed all life on earth except for those on the arc.

Anything less than that, makes the story a fiction. Saying that it was based upon a regional flood doesn't make it any less fictional.

In a similar fashion, just because Abraham Lincoln was a real person, it doesn't mean he killed vampires.

Seems to be Bull Sharks all the way down.

 

[X]

DOC,I am really having a hard time understanding your position, as it seems to drift about aimlessly.

Was the flood real or not?
By real, I mean a world wide flood that killed all life on earth except for those on the arc.

Anything less than that, makes the story a fiction. Saying that it was based upon a regional flood doesn't make it any less fictional.

In a similar fashion, just because Abraham Lincoln was a real person, it doesn't mean he killed vampires.

This is the reason several posters in this thread have been repeatedly asking DOC to clarify what his position actually is.


Is he asking if the fossils in Peru are evidence of the Noachian flood? The answer to that is simple. It is "no". Various well-tested and understood dating methods have shown them to be too old.
A note for DOC: Carbon 14 is NOT the only dating method, and is not the one that would be used for fossils of such age. Click here for a nice summary.

Is he arguing something else? If so, he needs to explain what he is arguing for. So far, all DOC has demonstrated is that he has not actually thought about what he believes regarding the biblical flood. Merely that he believes it. This is evidence in the complete lack of any sort of chronology for the event, and in the use of evidence and hypotheses that even a cursory examination would show to be contradictory, false, impossible, inapplicable or any combination thereof.


In addition to reminding me of certain 9/11 truther argument styles (that is NOT a ringing endorsement of logical argumentation), he reminds me of a couple of young Islamic girls who gave a (obviously scripted) talk at a presentation dinner I was recently coerced into attending. The dinner was being held to raise awareness of the plight of muslims who were being urged in their home country to accept a more mild version of Islam. But they wanted their more rigit version. The two girls talked about how they loved their burka and adored their burka. It was obvious that they believed the burka to be good, but equally obvious that they had never thought about why they loved the Burka and believed it to be good, or what the specifics of their belief was. It was very vague, and a bit disturbing (along with the segregation of women, and having a male presenter explain why women were honored Islamically, so long as they behaved in a subservient and Islamic manner). But I get off-topic.


Much like DOC. He knows WHAT he believes, in a broad sense (Jesus said flood, that's good enough for him), but he has obviously never thought about it in any detail.

He has the chance in this thread to do so. To analyze one of his beliefs, and refine what he actually believes, so that in the future he can present a coherent and structured story to the people he's witnessing to.

He has, thus far, avoided doing that.

It is a pity.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Google definition:

The remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.

I don't know why people spend so much time at school or university when all we have to do is go to the dictionary for some learnin'.

 

[abaddon]

So the actual fish could have been millions of years younger than the rock's estimated age.

How could that be if your dog created the whole world in 4004 BCE?

Do you not realise that your claim requires rocks that are millions of years old?
If the rocks are millions of years old as you claim then the biblical account is right out the window.

You are arguing against YEC, yet seem not to realise it.

 

[pakeha]

...A note for DOC: Carbon 14 is NOT the only dating method, and is not the one that would be used for fossils of such age. Click here for a nice summary. ...

While the link was intended for DOC, I've taken the opportunity to link to it, read it and bookmark it.
Thanks.

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?


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.


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.



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.

Why so strident, Slackerbathat?
You claimed there was strong archeological evidence of trade routes between the Middle East and Northern Europe.
I wanted to know what that evidence was.

I now know what you think strong archeological is- an 80 year old article from the National Geographic.
I'm surprised you based your claim on that article and the two figurines. The Iraqi figurine is far too recent to apply to your claim, of course.

It's as though I claimed the Neanderthals wrote symphonies based on that little bone flute in the Stuttgart museum.
But never mind, Slackerbathat.
The next time you decide to make a claim, why not prepare your sources beforehand rather than afterward?

But let's look at your revised claim
" 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"

From all over the world?
What do you base this on?
ETA
Is this how your idea ties into the South American fossils?
Pre-Columbian trade routes across the Atlantic?

It has something to do with trade routes and women.

OMG have we exposed an ancient female slave traffic.

Only a carbon based life-form could express the subject so succinctly.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

False, Noah did not have sex with his daughters, although he did have a vineyard, and drank too much one day and fell asleep naked. Actually a story like this increases the chances of the truth of the Noah story since it is an unlikely invention concerning a man God had found favor with.

Also false.

According to this twisted logic most novels ever written are more likely to be true than most historical documents.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Of course its relevant. DOC is arguing for the Noachian Flood, and by association, for the veracity and historical accuracy of the OT bible.

<snip>

I'm unable to find the post(s) in which DOC states that this is his argument.

Do you have a link handy?

Discussion of possible alternative "non-divine" sources for biblical stories like the Flood myth is both interesting and thought provoking, at least I find it so. I enjoy the speculation on how the various stories in ancient texts such as the two bible testaments, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Qu'ran might have come about; ancient peoples, unable to understand what they saw, passing down oral stories and depicting them on stone tablets down through the generations.

I similarly enjoy such discussions, although I might well point out that we've had it about twenty times during my time in this Forum.

Such discussions, however, have nothing to do with this thread unless the stories which served as a basis for the biblical version are able to answer the OP question in the affirmative.

This question:

The bible talks of a worldwide flood. Could marine fossils found 700 meters above sea level be evidence of that?

No matter what earlier stories formed the basis for the biblical account, the answer to that question is always going to be "no".

If you limited the discussion to the words on the OP's post title, no thread would last more than a few posts.

Whilst I disagree completely with this statement, I'd also point out that when an OP poses a question to which the answer is so obviously and emphatically "No!" as is the case with this thread then it probably doesn't deserve more than a few posts in response.

I'd also point out that the only reason this thread has gained any traction at all is that it's nothing more than a continuation of a number of other threads in which DOC has attempted to establish biblical historicity, failed, and then abandoned the discussion when his claimed 'evidence' has been shown to be non-existent.

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

Roughly?

Say, within 50 million years?

Well DOC clearly (and IMO wrongly) thinks they are.

Clearly?

Once again, I'm unable to find the post(s) where DOC has stated this.

That's why I'm rather keen to have him provide the chronology that Slowvehicle asked him for in this post:

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.

Although he refuses to come right out and say it, he is very obviously a proponent of Young Earth theory.

Because he refuses to come right out and say much of anything at all, the only thing that's obvious to me is that he doesn't even know what Young Earth theory entails.

Now if you want to attack the proposal that marine fossils found in Lebabon and Peru are proof/evidence for the biblical flood, there isn't just one way to go about it, for example

1. you can try to prove that the fossils didn't get where they are due to a flood

Prove?

In any case, was it not demonstrated within the first few pages of this thread (not to mention all the other threads on more-or-less the same subject) that a global flood covering mountain ranges such as the Andes is a ridiculous idea?

I rather thought it was.

2. You an try to prove that the fossils are much older than the time of the claimed flood.

Prove?

Is there anyone participating in the thread who doesn't already accept that this is the case?

3. you can try to show that the flood never happened, or if it did, that it was local and has origins other than God's wrath.

Already done. Pages and pages ago.

In which case it's not the biblical flood referred to in the OP.

Each of these are valid arguments in their own right, and deserve to be discussed.

The first two are both valid and on-topic. The third is definitely valid, but belongs in another thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

This thread is not about my opinions. It's about the facts and logical thinking regarding those facts.

What are the facts that connect the flood described in Genesis with the fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru and what is the train of logical thought which makes this connection?

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you ever going to address the issue of what 85-million-year-old fossils in Peru have to do with a 6,000-year-old fludde legend in Mesopotamia
?

Are the fossils in Peru allegedly 85 million years old or the material surrounding them that estimated age.

Take your pick.

Whether it's the substrate (supposed by you to have been laid down during the flood) or the fossils themselves, you've still got the same huge displacement in time to deal with.

Remember the link that said carbon dating is not reliable for marine life.

What I remember is that you are the only one here who is discussing the straw man of carbon dating of the fossils.

IF the actual fish is 85 million, true, that would not be related to a local flood in the middle East.

It doesn't matter what age the fossils are, they would have nothing to do with a local flood in the Middle East.

But in any case, a local flood in the Middle East isn't the topic of the thread.

The topic of the thread is the worlwide flood described in Genesis.

 

[Akhenaten]

I guess people will always cherry pick and interpret verses to fit their political desires or debating tactics.

Why do you need to guess?

It's been a consistent and extremely prominent feature of your own arguments for years.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Hey DOC, while you're here, how about answering that question you've been avoiding for the past couple of days of 'if the Book of Genesis has been changed from the original scripture, as you yourself have claimed...

No I haven't.

Really? Shall we take another look at how the conversation went?
This is from post #913

I believe that I actualy asked you for the "quote" in the Book of Genesis itself that names it's author. Now, no more avoiding the actual question that I asked, who does the Book of Genesis itself quote as it's author?

It doesn't on the copies, which seems to happen a lot on ancient writings.

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?

You might not know this but almost all original ancient documents have been lost and we only have the copies of those originals left.

So, let's recap, I asked you who the Book of Genesis names as it's author, you said that the "copies" of the Book of Genesis doesn't mention it's author, implying that the original did name it's author, which obviously implies a change to the original when the 'copies' were made, which then begs the question; if the original was changed, how do we know that what we read today is a trustable source?

Now please, I'm asking you politely, instead of avoiding the question or claiming that you didn't say what you actualy did say, could you please just answer the question?


Note*
This post has been edited to include the final part of the quote (which, for some strange reason I had omitted) helpfully provided by Akhenaten in the post that immediately follows this one, for which he has my gratitude.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey DOC, while you're here, how about answering that question you've been avoiding for the past couple of days of 'if the Book of Genesis has been changed from the original scripture, as you yourself have claimed...

No I haven't.

Only for values of "haven't" that include Wilburing your way out of giving a meaningful answer at all.

viz.

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?...

You might not know this but almost all original ancient documents have been lost and we only have the copies of those originals left.

"You might not know this . . ."

LOL



ETA: Ninja'd by SlackerBabbath.

 

[Akhenaten]

How would the fossils be younger than the material surrounding them?

For example if a ray or squid, fell into a pool of water located in a mountain crevice during a flood and were later quickly covered during a volcano, earthquake, or landslide. The surrounding material could be millions of years older than the actual marine life.

I saw a documentary on octopus and it's amazing how narrow a opening a they can fit through.

Did the documentary happen to mention what the rays, squids and octopusses were doing in the mountains?

 

[Akhenaten]

Were the fossils rays or squid?

What about the rest of my questions?

I guess people will always cherry pick and interpret verses to fit their political desires or debating tactics.

What's that thing about pots and kettles?

 

[Akhenaten]

So there would be no "actual fish" to carbon date. Thanks for confirming that.

So the actual fish could have been millions of years younger than the rock's estimated age.

If you'd bothered to actually read the article(s) that you yourself linked to in the OP then you'd already know the answer to this soism.

In any case, even if the answer is "yes" then it does nothing more than change your original question from:

The bible talks of a worldwide flood. Could marine fossils found 700 meters above sea level be evidence of that?

to:

The bible talks of a worldwide flood. Could 85-million-year old rocks containing marine fossils found 700 meters above sea level be evidence of that?

Is there any functional difference in these two questions, DOC?

 

[Mojo]

Remember the link that said carbon dating is not reliable for marine life.

I'm sure that everyone also remembers that you only introduced the link after deceptively editing Gawdzilla's post to imply that he was talking about carbon dating.

Gawdzilla posted this:

DOC, dating is a science, so trying to AIG the issue just doesn't work.

You replied with this:

DOC, {Carbon} dating is a science...

A relatively young science that has problems.

From the article: Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating -- From the website
The California Institute for Ancient Studies

"Are there things that can't be carbon dated?

The method doesn't work on things that didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures since their carbon might originate from dissolved carbonate rocks limestone. This in turn causes problems in dating animals that eat sea food.

We can't date things that are too old. After about 10 half lifes, there is very little C-14 left to measure."

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

You introduced carbon dating as a strawman argument, and blatantly misrepresented Gawdzilla to in order to do so.

Carbon dating is not used to date 85 million year old fossils, and never has been. Stop pretending that it is relevant here.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Why so strident, Slackerbathat?
You claimed there was strong archeological evidence of trade routes between the Middle East and Northern Europe.
I wanted to know what that evidence was.

I now know what you think strong archeological is- an 80 year old article from the National Geographic.
I'm surprised you based your claim on that article and the two figurines. The Iraqi figurine is far too recent to apply to your claim, of course.

It's as though I claimed the Neanderthals wrote symphonies based on that little bone flute in the Stuttgart museum.
But never mind, Slackerbathat.
The next time you decide to make a claim, why not prepare your sources beforehand rather than afterward?

But let's look at your revised claim
" 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"

From all over the world?
What do you base this on?
ETA
Is this how your idea ties into the South American fossils?
Pre-Columbian trade routes across the Atlantic?

Firstly, the 80 year old article is not the 'evidence', the archeological finds behind that the article is based upon are the actual evidence, and those finds and the archeological situations they were found in haven't changed since they were found.

Secondly, by 'all over the world' I'm obviously using a general term that means 'various different places throughout the world' rather than from 'every location possible within the world'.

Now, I'd love to continue answering your cross examination of the most miniscule details of what I have said during this conversation, but there have been complaints about this being 'off topic' and considering that I'm new here and unfamiliar with board rules, I feel I should decline any further debate upon the subject.

I apologise if anything I have said has offended you and caused you to react to me in this highly critical way and influenced you're 'humourus' changing of my username, hopefully we can both put this behind us like the adults that I hope we both are.

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC,I am really having a hard time understanding your position, as it seems to drift about aimlessly.

Was the flood real or not?
By real, I mean a world wide flood that killed all life on earth except for those on the arc.

Anything less than that, makes the story a fiction. Saying that it was based upon a regional flood doesn't make it any less fictional.

^ Exactly this.

All this conjecture about local floods and pre-biblical accounts of them is nothing more than a great big fossilised red herring.

 

[Akhenaten]

Noah was the one who got drunk, passed out and was sodomised by his son.

False.

Well of course it's false.

There was no such person as Noah.

 

[zooterkin]

Firstly, the 80 year old article is not the 'evidence', the archeological finds behind that the article is based upon are the actual evidence, and those finds and the archeological situations they were found in haven't changed since they were found.

Secondly, by 'all over the world' I'm obviously using a general term that means 'various different places throughout the world' rather than from 'every location possible within the world'.

Now, I'd love to continue answering your cross examination of the most miniscule details of what I have said during this conversation, but there have been complaints about this being 'off topic' and considering that I'm new here and unfamiliar with board rules, I feel I should decline any further debate upon the subject.

With my mod hat on, I would say that it's a fine topic for discussion, but the links with the current topic are so tenuous that it is likely be judged off-topic if the discussion takes place in this thread. Feel free to start a new thread on the topic, in an appropriate sub-forum (depending on what angle you're coming at it from).

I apologise if anything I have said has offended you and caused you to react to me in this highly critical way and influenced you're 'humourus' changing of my username, hopefully we can both put this behind us like the adults that I hope we both are.

I would guess that the change was not deliberate; I've done the same myself, misread a member's name for a long time (in this case, missing the spoonerism).