Weather during the Global Flood

Critias · Sep 10, 2005

So, it is a possibility that these ice fields could have been tropical at the time of the mammoths existence. The mammoths with hair wouldn't be sufficient evidence to conclude that they were only in colder climates. There are many mammals who have hair that live in warmer climates.

The fact that there is a tropical forest frozen in Alaska is quite telling. It isn't proof either that mammoths lived in those tropics, but it is possible. The tropical forest had not petrified yet which does lead to the conclusion that the Ice Age came rather quickly. Especially when you have mammoths frozen with food undigested in their stomach and their organs preserved. For if mammoths were built for the cold, then the cold temperatures wouldn't have affected them that greatly unless the weather dropped very quickly that they froze while alive. That would point to a sudden ice age.

I have read that most scientists don't believe the ice age was sudden but rather gradual, maybe my sample size is too small, I don't know.

gluadys · Sep 10, 2005

Critias said:
So, it is a possibility that these ice fields could have been tropical at the time of the mammoths existence. The mammoths with hair wouldn't be sufficient evidence to conclude that they were only in colder climates. There are many mammals who have hair that live in warmer climates.

The fact that there is a tropical forest frozen in Alaska is quite telling. It isn't proof either that mammoths lived in those tropics, but it is possible. The tropical forest had not petrified yet which does lead to the conclusion that the Ice Age came rather quickly. Especially when you have mammoths frozen with food undigested in their stomach and their organs preserved. For if mammoths were built for the cold, then the cold temperatures wouldn't have affected them that greatly unless the weather dropped very quickly that they froze while alive. That would point to a sudden ice age.

I have read that most scientists don't believe the ice age was sudden but rather gradual, maybe my sample size is too small, I don't know.

I did a fair bit of research on this about a year ago for another board. First, there is no evidence that mammoths froze quickly. Some have been partly scavenged and even partly decayed before freezing, others were quickly buried in mudslides which then froze around them. But the freezing was in no case instantaneous.

Mammoth digestion is similar, of course, to elephant digestion. Both have a stomach which holds large amounts of virtually undisgested grass before it is transferred bit by bit to the chamber in which digestion occurs. Since digestion stops with death, any food in this holding chamber remains undigested even if it was eaten hours before death. So one does not need a sudden death-dealing freeze to explain the undigested material.

Finally, the undigested food itself is not tropical, but the sort of grasses that grow in sub-Arctic climates. Yes, during the Ice Ages the ice fields came close to tropical latitudes. But the climate near them was still Arctic to sub-Arctic.

Also worth noting is that most mammoth finds correlate with interglacial periods, that is with times in which the climate was warming, not cooling.

All this info is fairly easy to come by on the internet. I did all the research from scratch in a few hours. But I am not prepared to do it myself again.

shernren · Sep 11, 2005

From the second link i posted:

the sediments containing Dima are of noncatastrophic fluvial (riverine) origin and contain, as does her gut, pollen from a variety of tundra types and localized larch forests. There is absolutely no evidence of temperate or tropical plants associated with this mammoth.

Fullstop, next?

Saucy · Sep 17, 2005

No, they actually found food, tropical plants, in mammoth's mouth. There's other evidence for the flood, such as mass graves all over the earth. The only way fossils can be created is the sudden covering of an animal by sediments. What can push more sediments around than anything? That's right, a flood. With mass graveyards with all kinds of different animals, billions of animals found in some, thrown together in a heap, shows much evidence for a great flood. What about the fossils of sea animals found on the highest mountains? There are sea fossils, from the oceans, found in the higher levels of Grand Canyon. Most deserts have proof of great water erosion and sea animal fossils. The great flood left its mark all over the world.

Rusticus · Sep 17, 2005

Saucy said:
No, they actually found food, tropical plants, in mammoth's mouth. ....

Maybe the mammoth had just come back from a safari in the tropics....
(It seems we can agree that they had cruise ships in those days.)

Critias · Sep 17, 2005

It would be so beneficial if everyone of us could just stop this senseless sarcasm that is used to put people down.

If we are interested in passing on our beliefs for people to actually consider, sarcasm doesn't help, but hinder this. When I am sarcastic to a TE, why would a TE ever even listen to what I have to say and take it as a possibility? They wouldn't because I damaged the process by my senseless sarcasm.

If we could find a way to treat each other better, as Christians ought to treat each other, as Jesus Christ commanded us to treat each other, we would be better off. The Christian body would be better off and we would show that we do love God with all of our heart.

He who breaks one law breaks them all.

Rusticus · Sep 17, 2005

Critias said:
It would be so beneficial if everyone of us could just stop this senseless sarcasm that is used to put people down.

If we are interested in passing on our beliefs for people to actually consider, sarcasm doesn't help, but hinder this. When I am sarcastic to a TE, why would a TE ever even listen to what I have to say and take it as a possibility? They wouldn't because I damaged the process by my senseless sarcasm.

If we could find a way to treat each other better, as Christians ought to treat each other, as Jesus Christ commanded us to treat each other, we would be better off. The Christian body would be better off and we would show that we do love God with all of our heart.

He who breaks one law breaks them all.

Wise words, indeed.

Are you actually 100 years old?

If yes, there is hope for me yet to achieve wisdom (44 years to go).

If no, don't you think you damage the "process" by being dishonest?

AimN · Sep 18, 2005

Rusticus said:
Wise words, indeed.

Are you actually 100 years old?

If yes, there is hope for me yet to achieve wisdom (44 years to go).

If no, don't you think you damage the "process" by being dishonest?

I'm guessing that Critias isn't 100 years old.

LewisWildermuth · Sep 18, 2005

Saucy said:
No, they actually found food, tropical plants, in mammoth's mouth.

I am sorry, but this is just false, no tropical vegetation has ever been found in a mammoth mouth or stomach. It is an urban legend, many repeat it, not knowing it is false, but the repetition does not make it true.

There's other evidence for the flood, such as mass graves all over the earth.

Since many of these mass graves are found in old flood plains, this proves there were floods in the past, but not a global flood, sorry.

The only way fossils can be created is the sudden covering of an animal by sediments.

And many fossils are found with scavenging marks showing that they were not buried fast... It is also false that fossils must be created by a sudden burial. All that is required is a burial before everything turns to dust, in some cases this can mean thousands of years. Someone has been telling you many things that are not true, you should seek a more competent teacher.

What can push more sediments around than anything?

An earthquake? A landslide? A cave-in? A local flood? A glacier? Many things.

With mass graveyards with all kinds of different animals, billions of animals found in some, thrown together in a heap, shows much evidence for a great flood.

The problem is that some of these graves are on top of one another suggesting several local floods, not one global flood. Another problem is that only creatures that lived in the same area and time are found in one grave, wouldnt a global flood mix up things a little more? Wouldn't a global flood look a little different from a local flood?

What about the fossils of sea animals found on the highest mountains? There are sea fossils, from the oceans, found in the higher levels of Grand Canyon. Most deserts have proof of great water erosion and sea animal fossils. The great flood left its mark all over the world.

You should pick up a modern geology book, it should answer most of the questions about how mountain building and sedimentation works.

The untruths told you have been many. Sad that some feel that lying to a child is the best way to spread the gospel.

Critias · Sep 18, 2005

Rusticus said:
Wise words, indeed.

Are you actually 100 years old?

If yes, there is hope for me yet to achieve wisdom (44 years to go).

If no, don't you think you damage the "process" by being dishonest?

My apologies if you were deceived by my lack of interest to tell everyone my age. It wasn't my intent to deceive.

I guess it would be best to take my age off. I thought people wouldn't be deceived, but I guess that I am wrong. My apologies.

Rusticus · Sep 18, 2005

Just getting back to the OP, or actually to before the OP.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any word of a GLOBAL flood.

The Bible says that "The Earth" was flooded.

Take a moment to think about what "The Earth" was to the people who told the story (verbally) from generation to generation before it was written down.

Their "Earth" was the countryside they knew, plus a few adjoining areas they had either seen from a distance, or heard about.

To say that the Bible talks about a "Global Flood" is simply not correct.

Critias · Sep 18, 2005

The Bible speaks about all the land under the heavens were flooded. That is where a global flood comes from.

Peter, in his Epistles, talks of the whole earth being flooded.

I have a question: Did God create the whole earth or only a piece of it?

Rusticus · Sep 18, 2005

Critias said:
The Bible speaks about all the land under the heavens were flooded. That is where a global flood comes from.

Peter, in his Epistles, talks of the whole earth being flooded.

I have a question: Did God create the whole earth or only a piece of it?

What the people of OT times understood the Earth to be, and what God created are two different things.

And another thing. They certainly did not believe that the Earth was a globe. So to talk about a Global flood is in fact a total mis-representation of what the Bible says.

The whole Earth (as they knew it way back in the days of Genesis) was flooded. I can agree with that. But, form a global perspective, it was a local flood.

Critias · Sep 18, 2005

Rusticus said:
What the people of OT times understood the Earth to be, and what God created are two different things.

And another thing. They certainly did not believe that the Earth was a globe. So to talk about a Global flood is in fact a total mis-representation of what the Bible says.

The whole Earth (as they knew it way back in the days of Genesis) was flooded. I can agree with that. But, form a global perspective, it was a local flood.

Peter, in his Epistle, said it was a world wide flood. At Peter's time it was commonly believed that the earth was round.

Peter believed and taught a global flood. Peter's pupils argued against the Greeks - who believe it was a local flood - saying it was global. Paul's pupils argued against the Greeks as well on the same teaching saying it was global.

If they all understood it as global, being Jews themselves, then it is safe to say that the OT meant global flood. So when it says all the land under the heavens was covered with water, that is what it meant.

If it is your contention that both Peter and Paul are wrong, you are free to your opinions. I believe Jesus, who did touch on the flood and Noah within Scriptures, touched on it even more with the disciples. Peter would have been corrected by Jesus - God Himself - if it wasn't a global flood. He was not.

That is why YECs accept a global flood. All Biblical evidence supports it. Science of today rejects it. YECs go with the Scriptures that holy men of God wrote because the SPirit of God moved them to say what they did.

As I said, you can disagree, that's fine. I don't think there is anything to say what we cannot believe as we do, right?

Rusticus · Sep 18, 2005

Critias said:
Peter, in his Epistle, said it was a world wide flood. At Peter's time it was commonly believed that the earth was round....

And Peter KNEW that there were the Americas, and Australia, and Antarctica, and he knew how far Africa stretched, and how far Asia.....

shernren · Sep 18, 2005

I'm curious - I don't remember if I've asked you this before Critias but do you see any biblical objection to the flood being geographically local but sociologically global? As in the flood could have wiped out all of humanity (besides Noah and crew), but not covered all the earth.

Rusticus · Sep 19, 2005

Critias said:
As I said, you can disagree, that's fine. I don't think there is anything to say what we cannot believe as we do, right?

In that I am in 100% agreement with you. As goes with all forms of belief.

Critias · Sep 19, 2005

shernren said:
I'm curious - I don't remember if I've asked you this before Critias but do you see any biblical objection to the flood being geographically local but sociologically global? As in the flood could have wiped out all of humanity (besides Noah and crew), but not covered all the earth.

If all there was, was the OT to go with, then I could accept the case of a local flood - geographically - and sociologically global. I would still follow that all flesh died but those on the Ark.

I agree that the noun in Hebrew can be taken as the whole earth or as land, being specific to a region. That is just the way the word is in Hebrew.

What convinces me that it is global is the New Testament. Peter taught it to be that, from my perspective, and I don't think there is really any other way you can make a case otherwise. My second point would be that Jesus did talk about the flood and Noah. Peter walked with Jesus. If the flood was only local, Peter would have been correct by Jesus.

In my belief, Jesus was fully man and fully God. I believe Jesus was all knowing while He was here on earth. People may disagree with me, but I believe there is Biblical evidence that He was. Because of this belief, Jesus would have corrected Peter.

What convinces me that Jesus was all knowing here are statements that He made like "Oh, Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you would not have Me." (paraphrase). This is a perspective of God, not a man with limited knowledge, in my opinion.

That is just how I see it and I don't expect to change anyones mind here. I realize I don't have the power to change peoples mind, that is the Holy Spirits job. So I am trying to leave my arrogance and ego at the door and work within my capabilities - telling what I believe.

shernren · Sep 19, 2005

In my belief, Jesus was fully man and fully God. I believe Jesus was all knowing while He was here on earth. People may disagree with me, but I believe there is Biblical evidence that He was. Because of this belief, Jesus would have corrected Peter.

Whether or not we can show without doubt that Jesus was omniscient on earth is beyond me at least. I believe more that Jesus suffered the ordinary limitations of mortal man, yet at the same time had such a Spirit-suffused life, being untainted with sin, that often the Holy Spirit would reveal unknowable things to His human mind and that accounted for the many incidents of divine power and knowledge we see recorded in the Gospels. But again I'm not really sure if I would be able to show that conclusively within the Scriptural framework.

Having said that I believe that omniscient or not Jesus would still have had to work within the constraints of the day's knowledge and worldviews.

I agree that the noun in Hebrew can be taken as the whole earth or as land, being specific to a region. That is just the way the word is in Hebrew.

No I am asking: can we take erets to mean, instead of all the earth, all the people of the earth? That it was global in every sense of the word from a human point of view? For example, the fact that South America wasn't flooded didn't mean a part of Noah's world wasn't flooded, because South America wasn't a part of Noah's world? (Yes, I am assuming with this sentence that the flood was geographically local.) Would that be a valid way to interpret erets - either all the people of the earth, or all the earth that had so far been peopled? And would this be consistent with how Peter talks of the flood?

Critias · Sep 19, 2005

Grammatically the way erets is used it couldn't mean people of the land. Try plugging it in everywhere you see earth in Genesis 7-8 and see what I mean. Context because a mass of confusion.

Hebrews talks of the flood in the context of it being brought on by the world's unbelief. Peter talks of the flood twice within the context of the world, instead of referring to it as a localized area - which would have been appropriate if it was.

There are other areas of this story that you would have to keep in mind as well. Genesis 7:19-20 in particular. It says all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. They were covered by 15 cubits. It is believed that cubits in these days were talked about in the Egyptian cubit which is 19.05 inches.

As I said, thats my view of it.

Weather during the Global Flood

Critias

Guest

Legend

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Critias

Guest

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Critias

Guest

Senior Member

Critias

Guest

Senior Member

Critias

Guest

Senior Member

you are not reading this.

Senior Member

Critias

Guest

you are not reading this.

Critias

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency