• 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

Then I assume that if the info below is true which someone posted earlier

"So archeologicaly it looks like two flooding events happened, one that formed the Persian Gulf, possibly about 10,000 years ago, and a later ..."

---it would not affect your belief in the flood story. The post by was posted on April 30 on this thread according to Google search but I can't find it.

It was also posted like this on another site:

As it happens, archeologicaly, we know that where the Persian Gulf is today was definately once an entirely dry basin (apart from several rivers that flowed through it that were connected to the Euphrates and Tigris river systems) about 15,000 years ago and that sometime after the last glaciation period ended, which was around 12,000 years ago, when the glaciers started melting and sea levels started to gradualy rise, it looks like some sort of natural dam once existed where the Straits of Hormuz are today which eventualy gave way, allowing the Arabian sea to suddenly spill over it creating the Persian Gulf as we see it today in a very short time.There's also evidence of relatively more recent extended local flooding in this part of the world. Excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak just under 5000 years ago.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-737277-p-56.html

DOC:

In what way are Cretaceous fossils at altitude in Peru significant to a Holocene flood in Mesopotamia?

In what way is a local flood in Mesopotamia the "global" flood that covered all the mountains to more than a cubit, and destroyed all life that was not in the ark? If the ark story is a fabrication loosley based on one or another of a series of local floods, how can you claim "accuracy" for anything contained in the OT, including the superstition that Moses "wrote" the Torah?
 
Of course not.
evidence of a local flood is acutally evidence AGAINST the flood story because the flood story supposedly was world wide and wiped out all life except for the beings on the boat.
Not really when you consider the universal language used in the flood story is used elsewhere in other ancient writings to describe something less than the whole world.
 
Last edited:
Please explain what, in your opinion, Cretaceous fossils at altitude in Peru have to do with a Holocene flood at sea level in Mesopotamia. (Else explain, why, in the name of Marmot-Stalking Stephenson, you made it the subject of the thread...)
It might not have anything to do with the flood you mentioned. But it is better to have more info than less.
 
Not really when you consider the universal language used in the flood story is used elsewhere in other ancient writings to describe something less than the whole world.

Not what your buddies at AiG think, is it.

Let me urge you to read carefully Genesis 6-9—chapters dealing with the Flood. If God was really trying to describe a local flood, He surely could have written a little more clearly, for over and over again the wording demands a global flood. In fact, I have counted more than 100 times when the wording implies a global flood. It is true that some of the individual words could be understood in a local sense, but in the context, no other position than that of a global flood is defensible. Consider these few quotes of the many: ‘the face of the earth (i.e. planet)’ (6:1); ‘end of all flesh. . . the earth is filled with violence . . . I will destroy them with the earth’ (6:13); ‘destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die’ (6:17). If God had intended to describe a global world-destroying flood, He couldn’t have said it any more clearly.

Furthermore, God promised never to send another flood like Noah’s Flood (9:11,15), but there have been many local floods, even regional floods, since Noah’s time. If Noah’s Flood was only local, then God lied to us. Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for his survival. He had up to 120 years’ warning (6:3), long enough to walk anywhere on the earth, certainly out of the region of the coming local flood.​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v12/n2/noah
 
Not really when you consider the universal language used in the flood story is used elsewhere in other ancient writings to describe something less than the whole world.

A localized flood would not have served God's supposed purpose to wipe out almost all of humanity off the planet. If you're claiming the flood could have been local rather than global, you're throwing out all the other biblical crap along with it.

Oh, and what about those Peruvian fossils you were trumpeting about, if this was a local flood?
 
Last edited:
Then I assume that if the info below is true which someone posted earlier

"So archeologicaly it looks like two flooding events happened, one that formed the Persian Gulf, possibly about 10,000 years ago, and a later ..."

---it would not affect your belief in the flood story. The post by (I believe Slackerbabbath) was posted on April 30 on this thread according to Google search but I can't find it.

It was also posted like this on another site:

...As it happens, archeologicaly, we know that where the Persian Gulf is today was definately once an entirely dry basin (apart from several rivers that flowed through it that were connected to the Euphrates and Tigris river systems) about 15,000 years ago and that sometime after the last glaciation period ended, which was around 12,000 years ago, when the glaciers started melting and sea levels started to gradualy rise, it looks like some sort of natural dam once existed where the Straits of Hormuz are today which eventualy gave way, allowing the Arabian sea to suddenly spill over it creating the Persian Gulf as we see it today in a very short time.There's also evidence of relatively more recent extended local flooding in this part of the world. Excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak just under 5000 years ago...

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-737277-p-56.html

I know that when I'm looking for information on geology, my first port of call is always the Ultimate Guitar forum.
 
Already responded.

How about responding to this (just one of various similar posts asking you to acknowledge what you did, bolding mine):

Same ol', attack the messenger ad hom strategy. Your conclusions are false as I already explained. If you or anyone else don't believe me---with regard to this latest get DOC episode--- so be it.

DOC, do you now acknowledge that you deliberately changed the text to add the word "carbon" in front of dating? And that you continued to do it despite being corrected on it numerous times? And that as late as today you were still arguing against carbon dating which nobody but you brought up to begin with?
 
Then I assume that if the info below is true which someone posted earlier

"So archeologicaly it looks like two flooding events happened, one that formed the Persian Gulf, possibly about 10,000 years ago, and a later ..."

---it would not affect your belief in the flood story. The post by (I believe Slackerbabbath) was posted on April 30 on this thread according to Google search but I can't find it.

It was also posted like this on another site:

...As it happens, archeologicaly, we know that where the Persian Gulf is today was definately once an entirely dry basin (apart from several rivers that flowed through it that were connected to the Euphrates and Tigris river systems) about 15,000 years ago and that sometime after the last glaciation period ended, which was around 12,000 years ago, when the glaciers started melting and sea levels started to gradualy rise, it looks like some sort of natural dam once existed where the Straits of Hormuz are today which eventualy gave way, allowing the Arabian sea to suddenly spill over it creating the Persian Gulf as we see it today in a very short time.There's also evidence of relatively more recent extended local flooding in this part of the world. Excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak just under 5000 years ago...

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-737277-p-56.html

I know that when I'm looking for information on geology, my first port of call is always the Ultimate Guitar forum.

Well it's backed up on this site:

"Reports of the exploration ship "Meteor" have confirmed that the Persian Gulf was an entirely dry basin about 15,000 BC."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_glacial_retreat
 
And here you go again, repeating the same lie. The only reason for you addressing carbon dating is because you dishonestly altered another's post to introduce carbon dating. Nobody mentioned carbon dating at all, until you dishonestly introduced the topic by altering someone else's post to make it read differently than intended.


Same ol', attack the messenger ad hom strategy.


Pointing out that someone has presented a forgery of another member's post and then attempted to argue against that forgery is not an ad hominem.

That it reflects even more badly on the person so arguing that he was the one who actually committed the forgery is not attacking the messenger.

That this kind of thing happens repeatedly to the same person because he is unable to conduct himself honestly is not, at least on the part of those bringing attention to this behaviour, a strategy.



Your conclusions are false . . .


There are no conclusions being drawn, DOC - simply statements of fact.

This is what was originally posted:


DOC, dating is a science...


and this is how you responded to it:


DOC said:
Were the fossils estimated to be that old or was the material surrounding them estimated to be that old? And who was the person who did the estimating?

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

What false conclusions are you claiming that abaddon has drawn in pointing out the above behaviour?



. . . as I already explained.


The sad joke that you're referring to as an explanation is even more dishonest than the original misrepresentation of another poster's words.



If you or anyone else don't believe me---with regard to this latest get DOC episode--- so be it.


Your gross mischaracterisation of the issue notwithstanding, it's somewhat surprising that the complete trashing of your credibility means so little to you.

What's the point of "putting info out there" when you've created a situation where nobody believes a word you post?
 
"Might not"?

Still evading. Did the Holocene Mesopotamian flood put the Cretaceous fossils in Peru?


Already responded.


RedFlag.gif


Red flag!

Your post does not contain a link to the post in which you responded to the question.

Biblical pathetogists lose credibility when they do this.
 
Would EI be just another name for the Sumarian chief god E-A (a.k.a. En-Ki)?
Yes, Enki is often equated with El in Canaan, in the same way that the Greek god Zeus is equated with the Roman god Jupiter, although Enki wasn't considered as the Sumrian 'chief' god, that was actualy his brother, Enlil.

Enki was the god of wisdom, magic and water, and also mischief too, and, mythology-wise, also had quite a lot in common with the God of Israel, Yahweh. He is also found in Hurrian and Hittite mythology as a god of contracts or covenants, and is considered as particularly favourable to humankind, infact in Sumerian mythology it is his idea to create humans after the lesser gods, known as the 'Igigi', who were tasked with tending to creation and labouring, rebelled against the dictatorship of Enlil, set fire to their tools, went on strike and even surrounded Enlil's house by night, all because they didn't like toiling on irrigation channels. According to the myth, Enki suggested that the gods solve this problem by creating humans for the purpose of carrying out the Igigi's agricultural labour and so humans were created by mixing earth with the blood of a god called 'Kingu'.

Later in Sumerian mythology, Enlil decides to kill off humanity because they had overbred and become too numerous and were being noisy and disturbing his rest, so he sends drought, famine and plague against the humans, but Enki teaches Atra Hasis (the hero of the Sumerian flood myth who also appears on one of the Sumerian king lists as the king of Shuruppak in the times before the flood) how to counter these. Enlil then gathers the Council of Deities and gets them to promise not to tell humankind that he plans their total annihilation via a flood. Enki does not tell Atra Hasis directly, but speaks to him in secret via a reed wall, which is actualy kinda reminiscent of the way that 'oracles' (particularly the oracle of Delphi) used to operate. He warns him about the coming flood and instructs him to build a boat from his house (made of reeds) in order to save his family and other living creatures. After seven days, he frees a swallow, a raven and a dove in an effort to find if the flood waters have receded.
Enlil is enraged that he had been thwarted again, and his brother Enki is named as the culprit, but Enki explains that Enlil was unfair to punish the humans who were guiltless, so the gods institute measures to ensure that humanity does not become too numerous again.

This has so many similarities with the much later Abrahamic mythology, it seems pretty obvious that Abrahamic mythology was, at least in part, based upon or influenced by the Sumerian mythology.

It also seems to smack slightly of actual historicity. Humans were created to irrigate creation (the earth) but then bred to vast numbers, resulting in famine and plague, this sounds like the early days of agriculture, which included the invention of irrigation and which we know was first developed in the same area as the Sumerians and eventualy led to the development of civilisation, the building of towns and cities, which brought overcrowding, disease, etc.

But I digress, and this is in danger of getting 'off topic' again, so I'll leave it there.
 
Last edited:
Then I assume that if the info below is true which someone posted earlier <snip>
I can only summarize what others have said. Either the flood referenced in bible is global or local. EVERY biblical reference (that I know of) talks of a truly global flood. For example, that's the ONLY way that the Noah story makes sense; else why take every animal on board.

If you want to stretch to interpret "global" to mean "local but global to the people who tell the story" then the god of your bible disappears. Surely if god created the whole universe he/she/it could see a bit beyond Mesopotamia.

If the flood is indeed local, then you have NO explanation for fossils in, say, Peru. NONE.
 
Same ol', attack the messenger ad hom strategy. Your conclusions are false as I already explained. If you or anyone else don't believe me---with regard to this latest get DOC episode--- so be it.

Nobody but you dishonestly altered somebodies post. You and you alone changed the intent of another poster. You, and you alone, inserted a strawman. You, and you alone lied. That's right, you lied for jeebus. You think that's A-OK.

It is not an ad-hom to point out your blatant lies.
 
Nothing is preventing you from putting one out there. But I can almost guarantee you that it is going to require faith by the vast majority of people on this system. For example if you say someone estimates something to be 85 million years old. That requires faith unless you have the ability to go to the desert, find a rock, and determine the age yourself (and in this example I will stipulate that you must have all the equipment necessary to make the estimate). If you can't do it yourself it requires faith.


If you think that is necessary, you have no idea how science works.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom