Noah's Flood...

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:04 pm

Von Daniken, who should, like Columbus, be given credit for being the first, even if he didn't know where he was going, put forward an interesting theory to explain certain petroglyphs he found and mythology. He made two mistakes. First, like the now-discredited bible, he tried to use his theory to explain EVERYTHING and Second, he failed to understand that there were other possibilities aside from aliens.

Cro-Magnon, who are modern humans....just like most of us....had a period of at least 30,000 years after the demise of the Neanderthals to do pretty much whatever they wanted. We are asked to believe that these people, who are just like us, sat around on rocks for all that time until somewhere around 8,000 BC in the Middle East they suddenly learned how to farm and build stone houses.

One need only consider human progress since 3,000 BC even as allowed for by archaeology and then realized that Cro Magnon had at least six times as long to develop.

I recall looking at one of Van Daniken's petroglyphs of an 'alien in a space suit' and thinking, 'it could also just as easily be a diving suit' because it seemed to have a hose. What a petroglyph of a man in a diving suit would be doing in the Australian desert is beyond me but it was equally unconvincing as a 'god' which is always archaeology's fallback position.

Von Daniken never addressed why his aliens would bother to come here and why they stopped. 25,000 years ago, 5 guys with revolvers could have conquered the whole planet had they wished to. Hancock's theory, that a wholly human civilization grew up and forms the basis for much of our mythology before being wiped out in the catastrophe of the ice age meltdown seems far more plausible than either Von Daniken or the bible.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:27 am

i find it interesting how people autoomatically assume the bible is discredited when there is no such ability or evidence to do so. i see a lot of abuse inthe interpretation of the facts when it comes to the Biblical accounts.

people would rather believe in the ice age though it is hard to prove such an age existed, than they would the Bible story which provides the source for the evidence they see.

it is quite possible what some scientists regard as ice age remnants as actuall leftover water from the flood. which would give the purpose to the people staying in the babel area for so many generations before they were split up and sent in different directions.

thus the 'human' remians being discovered are actually not cro-magnon or homlo erectus or what ever but really the skeletons of the the original civilizations that were destroyed in the flood itself.

with carbomn14 so succeptible to contamination, the longevity of the immersion in water would account for the outrageous dates being offered by certain researchers.

this is a theory which would need some investigation but it is worth thinking about instead of the fable of evolution. it also makes more sense than evolution as there are answers to be found not questions.

Gene · Post by **Gene** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:51 am

The flood story was about rain from the sky...not about rising sea levels.

(Sea levels are still rising..)

I don't think people should marry the two. One is a creationists story.

I can't believe how quickly people inhale an idea and run with it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:17 pm

The flood story was about rain from the sky...not about rising sea levels.

sorry to disagree with you but it isn't just about rain from the sky.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:28 pm

Michelle,

Do you suppose you could delete the duplications?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:13 am

i find it interesting how people autoomatically assume the bible is discredited when there is no such ability or evidence to do so

I'm not going to let you slip something like this in there when it is flat-out wrong.

Modern archaeology has pretty much demolished the house of cards which the early, theology-based investigators built up in the hopes of proving their precious bible to be true.

It's mainly horseshit.

Barracuda · Post by **Barracuda** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:00 pm

"Cro-Magnon, who are modern humans....just like most of us...."

OK. In general, I buy that! I do know of some exceptions! They surf at Pleasure Point in Santa Cruz! Someone should really do some field work there some weekend! I think DNA testing is in order...

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:20 pm

Why don't you like surfers?

ardallan · Post by **ardallan** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:53 pm

i am much in the favour of this theory,however i do have some questions.
if the humans had 20 000 years to develop their culture and civilisation.their civilisation must have been very developed and advanced in every aspect.look at what we have achieved in 6 000 years.why and how this advanced civilisation were wiped out in the ice age with out leaving any trace??nothin besides mythology???another thing i saw maps of the world in period of the last ice age.if we trust those maps although temperatures dropped everywhere most of land remained intact.like much of mesopotamia,south america,africa and etc.the sea level rose but it only affected the coast line.you dont think that all the people lived at the coast line in those days??i saw some under water structres that resembled the modern streets and cities but they can be of the later period since the rising of the sea level continued after ice age untill today.i saw it by myself in caspian sea north of iran.sea level rose about 10 meters in 5 or 6 years sinkin what was land before.over all this theory of an advanced civilisation wiped out in a catastrophe reminds me of the theory of atlantis.do you believe in the theory of atlantis??
although this theory has it's flaws it is more probable than the noah's flood in bible.i credit bible.but only as an ancient text with some portion of truth.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:26 pm

That's really an excellent point, Ardallan and for a partial answer find a halfway decent population density chart for the world. What it will show you is that the majority of the world's population lives along the coastlines of the major oceans. There are many reasons for this mainly dealing with transportation, commerce, fishing, etc.

A sudden rise in water level would disrupt billions....something our beloved president would do well to consider if he would ever get his head out of his ass. But most of them would not drown. Most would die of starvation/disease/ civil disturbances. Consider the recent tsunami in South Asia or the effects of Hurricane Katrina or even the Pakistan earthquake. Rebuilding the areas in question will take years and those people can only be supported by massive aid. In a truly global catastrophe, no one would be able to help because the effects would be so widespread as to render aid impossible. Our civilization is built on a house of cards. How many people do you know who could repair an electrical power station? How many could build or repair an oil refinery? How many could do much more than run for the hills trying to save themselves?

If you can get a copy of Graham Hancock's, Fingerprints of the Gods, (which could be banned in Iran for all I know) you would see that in addition to the rising water he postulates earthquakes and volcanism as a result of the release of pressure on the land. I can't do the book justice in a post on a message board but the notion of 'saviour gods' who show up after a catastrophe to show mankind how to live is widespread. Hancock's answer is that the savior gods were survivors of destroyed cultures who tried to impart some of their knowledge.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:45 pm

If you look carefully at global maps of the distribution of people it turns out that 80% of the world's population lives within 80 miles of a coastline. People tend to do that. And 18,000 years ago at glacial maximum, people weren't much different. They lived mostly in coastal plains and regions. If there were civilisations, they would have risen there! But sea level rose. About 300 to 400 feet. So these coastal plains and regions where people lived flooded and have been submerged ever since: the continental shelf.
If there are any great neolithic civilisations to be found, I'll bet you a hundred to one it's underwater!

ardallan · Post by **ardallan** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:02 pm

about population density chart you are right.most of the population are gathered in the coastlines.

i also read this in wikipedia :
Since the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, sea level has risen by over 120 m (averaging 6 mm/yr) as a result of melting of major ice sheets. A rapid rise took place between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago at an average rate of 10 mm/yr which accounted for 90 m of the rise; thus in the period since 20,000 years BP (excluding the rapid rise from 15-6 kyr BP) the average rate was 3 mm/yr.
A significant event was Meltwater Pulse 1A (mwp-1A), when sea level rose approximately 20 m over a 500 year period about 14,200 years ago. This is a rate of about 40 mm/yr. Recent studies suggest the primary source was meltwater from the Antarctic, perhaps causing the south-to-north cold pulse marked by the Southern Hemisphere Huelmo/Mascardi Cold Reversal, which preceded the Northern Hemisphere Younger Dryas.
well it didnt happen so suddenly?surely they had time to relocate?
i totally agree about that it's probable that there were neolithic civilistaions before the ice age.all i am saying is that they couldnt be perished and wiped out just because of 20 m sea level rising over 500 years period without leaving any trace.may be there is another reason to this??

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:32 pm

You may find this of interest, Ardallan.

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/sci ... -harry.htm

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:47 pm

ardallan wrote:about population density chart you are right.most of the population are gathered in the coastlines.

i also read this in wikipedia :
Since the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, sea level has risen by over 120 m (averaging 6 mm/yr) as a result of melting of major ice sheets. A rapid rise took place between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago at an average rate of 10 mm/yr which accounted for 90 m of the rise; thus in the period since 20,000 years BP (excluding the rapid rise from 15-6 kyr BP) the average rate was 3 mm/yr.
A significant event was Meltwater Pulse 1A (mwp-1A), when sea level rose approximately 20 m over a 500 year period about 14,200 years ago. This is a rate of about 40 mm/yr. Recent studies suggest the primary source was meltwater from the Antarctic, perhaps causing the south-to-north cold pulse marked by the Southern Hemisphere Huelmo/Mascardi Cold Reversal, which preceded the Northern Hemisphere Younger Dryas.
well it didnt happen so suddenly?surely they had time to relocate?

A 'rate' figure is a theoretical average. In reality these things happen in surges. In leaps and bounds. Dramatic events, like a dozen Katrina's and tsunami's per year! One after another. Year after year. Never average. Never gradual rise.
Sure they had time to 'relocate'. People can 'relocate' 20 miles a day. Rebuilding a civilisation – if there was one – takes many centuries, however.

i totally agree about that it's probable that there were neolithic civilistaions before the ice age.

I never said that was probable. In fact I don't think it is.

all i am saying is that they couldnt be perished and wiped out just because of 20 m sea level rising over 500 years period without leaving any trace.may be there is another reason to this??

IF there are 'traces', they're underwater!
Have you looked there?

ardallan · Post by **ardallan** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:49 pm

i saw all the sites mentioned and perhaps hancook himself in a documentray film on TV here.i saw the under water staright lines at malta which as he was claiming was canals and also Iseki Point, Yonaguni.that site in india and...
thanks for the link.
but about sea level rising.

which theory is right after all?