My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[Wolseley]

Yeah, I've read those types of accounts too. It's rather common that there's a lot of stuff found in various rock layers that "shouldn't be there".

Good question?

Yeah, there's evidence of early Mesopotamian writing in Canada.

There's also theories I've heard people say that there's remnants of early astronomical calendars (similar to Stonehenge) in North America too. Although there's not enough that's been unearthed to verify that for certain.


There's a lot of that type of stone architecture around the world that people can't explain. The Sphinx was underwater at some point; which makes me wonder if it was derived from some other pre-flood structure? (But the flood was like 7000 or so years ago.)

Interesting, if you line up the patriarchs ages in the Bible, except for where it says "he called his name..." we get a planet that's a little more than 13,000 years old at this point. Which raises some interesting questions. There were originally 12 tribes; then 13. 12 apostles; then 13? Does that mean anything? (I don't know?)

Another interesting thing I found in Revelation. The "1000 year reign". The term "thousand years" is a "duel plural". Does that mean 2000 years? Well 2000 years post crucifixion is 2033 AD. Does that mean anything? (I don't know that either.)

This I wasn't aware of. Interesting.

This would support my theory that the flood was initiated from a tidal wave that started on one side of Pangea. Now if we are looking at multiple sized rock fragments hitting earth.

Apparently I'm not the only one who has this theory: (and lookie - these Harvard professors think it hit off the coast of Mexico!)

New theory behind Chicxulub impactor that killed the dinosaurs

New theory explains origin of comet that killed the dinosaurs.

news.harvard.edu

AND; does this make you wonder about the large fresh water basin that's basically under the western half of the North American continent? That has intrigued me. I'm not aware of any other underground fresh water basin that big anywhere else on the planet.

I've heard this too. But that begs the question too of fossils laid down during the flood conceivably could be flipped from volcanic activity too. There are several examples of intersecting layers of rock that are "out of alignment too". Then there's examples of places where there's just big stacks of sedimentary rock jutting up out of the plains. Then the Grand Canyon is basically a big crack in the ground. Look at the sediment layout inside of it. Erosion doesn't do that. That's an earthquake fault line.

We've read a lot of the same books. There are some schools of thought that speculate that rather than being worn down by erosion over millions of years by the Colorado River, the Grand Canyon was created in half an hour by an ocean sloshing across the continent and carving it out. (shrug)

@Wolseley - Speaking of "scientific research" you might find this interview fascinating: They talk about the academic dishonesty in this interview. It's fascinating!

James Linsey is a mathematician and he wrote a paper on mathematic calculations about glaciers and geology. They rejected the paper because there was "no notations" from "a female viewpoint" or reference to "native mythology on the formation of ice".

Thank you. I will definitely check that out.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Venus comet THEORY:

Eight New Reasons To Accept the Revised Venus Theory

Here are eight new reasons to accept the Revised Venus Theory, improving on the original Venus Theory of Immanuel Velikovsky.

www.scientiapress.com

Venus *ISN'T* a comet. Period. The whole concept is laughable. Venus is too dense to be made of ice. And it doesn't matter what kind of stupid claim you can find on the internet. It is still just that -- a foolish claim in opposition to the actual observed data.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The mass and radius of Venus have nothing to do the question of the origin or age of the universe.

Of course they don't, but then again neither does a flood on an obscure planet.

"Scientific" assessments of origin and age are THEORIES.

So?

Measurement of a planet is a potentially observable phenomena; (go back and read my initial response) provided we are capable of getting close enough to evaluate the accuracy of the measurement.



Nice try though.

What is your point other than you apparently have no proper conception of a scientific theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A theory is an opinion. A theory is not a fact.

"Scientific" assessments of origin and age are THEORIES.

Venus comet THEORY:

You really don't understand what a theory is when used in science, do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You really don't understand what a theory is when used in science, do you?

Like the CEN theory?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like the CEN theory?

I don't even think you actually care.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't even think you actually care.

It doesn't matter if I care or not, does it?

A theory is still a theory, is it not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It doesn't matter if I care or not, does it?

A theory is still a theory, is it not?

It kind of does since I feel that, 9 times out of 10, you are disingenuous when you talk about science. I mean, what's one of your oft repeated catchphrases? "Science can take a hike".

Also, that comment wasn't addressing you in the slightest.

 

[jayem]

Second Heaven -- not Third.

And I thought heaven was just an imaginative name for the atmosphere above the cloud layer. So what is heaven? And is there more than one?

BTW: I'd still like someone to explain why God didn't know from the start that widespread wickedness would fill the world. And why in post-flood modern times—where human beings (as the Bible would suggest) are all descendants of Noah—do we still find horrific evil and reprehensible behavior everywhere? What did the flood accomplish?

 

[Hans Blaster]

And I thought heaven was just an imaginative name for the atmosphere above the cloud layer. So what is heaven? And is there more than one?

BTW: I'd still like someone to explain why God didn't know from the start that widespread wickedness would fill the world. And why in post-flood modern times—where human beings (as the Bible would suggest) are all descendants of Noah—do we still find horrific evil and reprehensible behavior everywhere? What did the flood accomplish?

I believe there are multiple heavens between the Earth and the moon, but I couldn't say more as Isrealite cosmology is very peculiar to modern notions.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I thought heaven was just an imaginative name for the atmosphere above the cloud layer.

It's a Biblical name, not an "imaginative name."

So what is heaven? And is there more than one?

It's a long story, but I'll shorten it.

There are three "firmaments" (or "heavens") mentioned in Genesis 1.

This is why "heaven" is singular in Genesis 1:1, but plural after creation is complete.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven [← singular] and the earth.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens [← now plural] and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

It goes like this:

1. First Heaven = atmosphere = populated by clouds & birds.
2. Second Heaven = outer space = populated by planets, moons, stars, etc.
3. Third Heaven = Heaven proper = populated by thrones, crystal sea, etc.

Paul was beaten to death in Lystra (Acts 14) and went to Third Heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, ( whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, ( whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

[JohnEmmett]

So what is heaven? And is there more than one?

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence

 

[The Righterzpen]

You really don't understand what a theory is when used in science, do you?

A theory (doesn't matter what field it is) is still someone's opinion.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Of course they don't, but then again neither does a flood on an obscure planet.

So?


What is your point other than you apparently have no proper conception of a scientific theory.

A "theory" even if they say it's "scientific" is still someone's opinion. As hard as you try, you can't escape that reality.

Several scientist have a THEORY that Venus was a comet. I'm not saying It is or not. I'm just pointing out that this is one theory.

Apparently you don't know what the word "theory" means. Theories are not facts.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Venus *ISN'T* a comet. Period. The whole concept is laughable. Venus is too dense to be made of ice. And it doesn't matter what kind of stupid claim you can find on the internet. It is still just that -- a foolish claim in opposition to the actual observed data.

NASA has a.... THEORY that comets aren't just made of ice. What comets are actually made of; we've never gotten close enough to know for sure. The THEORY is that they are made of ice and dust; but that theory has never been proven that this is the only thing they are made out of.

Now people on earth may see something they call a comet; but is what they are seeing made of ice and dust? Not necessarily.
So you can't prove that anything people have seen they've called "a comet" is only made out of ice and dust.

Which of course is another theory that NASA can't actually prove that comets are only made out of ice and dust.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A "theory" even if they say it's "scientific" is still someone's opinion. As hard as you try, you can't escape that reality.

No, it isn't. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework that is well tested and supported by evidence.

Several scientist have a THEORY that Venus was a comet. I'm not saying It is or not. I'm just pointing out that this is one theory.

Not any serious scientists. Who are these cranks?

Apparently you don't know what the word "theory" means. Theories are not facts.

No, theories are far better than mere facts.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No, it isn't. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework that is well tested and supported by evidence.

Some thing that's "well tested and supported by evidence" is not a theory; that's a fact. 2+2 is always 4; that's a fact; not a theory.

The fact that something is called a theory proves that it's not a fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you really this ignorant? Do you post without knowing a single thing about which you write? I have a hard time believing otherwise.

NASA has a.... THEORY that comets aren't just made of ice. What comets are actually made of; we've never gotten close enough to know for sure.

Space craft have flown close enough to comets to observe the nucleus up close:

Giotto (spacecraft) - Wikipedia

Deep Space 1 - Wikipedia

and collected samples of dust

Stardust (spacecraft) - Wikipedia

and collided with a comet (intentionally)

Deep Impact (spacecraft) - Wikipedia

and orbited a comet

Rosetta (spacecraft) - Wikipedia

The THEORY is that they are made of ice and dust; but that theory has never been proven that this is the only thing they are made out of.

Oh boy, you messed this one up. The "ice and dust" have been measured in situ and returned to Earth. Not to mention all the spectroscopic measurements. (And it's not only ice and dust, it is primarily ice and dust. It is an observational fact.)

Now people on earth may see something they call a comet; but is what they are seeing made of ice and dust? Not necessarily.
So you can't prove that anything people have seen they've called "a comet" is only made out of ice and dust.

Which of course is another theory that NASA can't actually prove that comets are only made out of ice and dust.

You should really stop while you're behind.

 

[The Righterzpen]

We've read a lot of the same books. There are some schools of thought that speculate that rather than being worn down by erosion over millions of years by the Colorado River, the Grand Canyon was created in half an hour by an ocean sloshing across the continent and carving it out. (shrug)

Yes, and the problem that a lot of people on this thread seem to have; is admitting that they just don't know.

I'm still not convinced that the Grand Canyon was solely flood water. I agree that the rock layer deposits were likely the result of Noah's flood. But it seems most logical to me that the canyon itself was formed by earthquakes. (And likely a degree of wind erosion and plain old gravity). Much of the canyon is filled with debris from upper layers falling on lower layers. It just seems to be too much debris for it to just have been water.

I went to the Grand Canyon with my parents when I was in the military. (That was about 35 or so years ago.) And the thing that caught my attention was the base layer of black rock at the bottom the canyon. Assuming it's either igneous or metamorphic or a combination of both (volcanic) rock; which is the (assumed) base of the continental plate.

But yeah, that was the first thought that came to my mind when I looked down into the canyon. "This was formed by a series of earth quakes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some thing that's "well tested and supported by evidence" is not a theory; that's a fact. 2+2 is always 4; that's a fact; not a theory.

The fact that something is called a theory proves that it's not a fact.

Facts are not theories and theories are not facts. That's why we have two different names for them.

The surface gravity of Earth is 9.81 m/s^2

That is a fact.

Gravitational force between two objects is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

That is a theory. Newton's theory of gravitation.

The gravitational facts about Earth are only valid for Earth. The theory of gravitation provides a framework to explain the motion of the planets, the cohesion of the planets and the Sun into bound bodies, and to plan the orbits and flight paths of spacecraft. A theory is far more useful and more powerful than a mere fact.