Geological evidence for the flood?

[edwest2]

Nothing about paleocurrents supports anything resembling a world wide flood. Be quiet and let the adults talk, buffalo. Stop spamming links constantly. It’s against the forum rules.

That was rude and uncalled for, especially since the reference linked to is not about selling something.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

That was rude and uncalled for, especially since the reference linked to is not about selling something.

Peace,
Ed

I would argue rather vehemently that his behavior towards me has been nothing but rude and uncalled for for over the last year. When the moderators let him get away with it over and over and over and over and over again, electing to, instead of suspend him for it, just lock the thread and leave the offending posts there for all to see, I’ve got to find some other way to express displeasure with his attitude.

Let me also point out that the offending post is over five months old.

Furthermore, the link does not have to be about selling something for it to be spam, per forum rules. It merely has to be repetitive and posts usually devoid of other substance.

 

[edwest2]

As I recall there is evidence that the Arctic region was tropical at one time. I think frozen mammoths have been found with buttercups in their mouths. This indicates a very rapid freezing.

I think this was used to support a theory that the north pole was in the area of Hawaii at that time.

I read this far too long ago to remember the details or the source.

That’s quite true. Mammoths were found that were flash frozen. There is a published photo of a part of the dry, non-ice covered part of the Antarctic that shows part of a tree about eight to ten feet tall, with one branch. Good evidence of a Temperate climate at one time.

The Bereskova Mammoth was found in the early 20th Century, and apparently, it was edible.

Peace,
Ed

 

[aragonjohn1]

Wow new posts?

Thank y’all

This has been helpful so far

Shalom
God bless

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are a couple of scientific theories that propose a global flood event, but one in which the water did not cover all land, nor kill all humans and animals outside the Ark.

Geologists Alexander and Edith Tollmann propose that the Flood of Noah was caused by a comet strike about 9500 years ago.

W. Bruce Masse (archaeologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory) and Dallas Abbott
(Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University) propose a more recent event, a comet strike in the Indian Ocean in 2807 B.C. as the cause of Noah’s Flood.

These theories explain the many flood myths throughout the world, and the Noah story – if it is interpreted in a way that is not entirely literal.

But I don’t think science and reason can support the idea that water covered all land, or that the flood killed all persons and animals outside the Ark.

 

[buffalo]

There are a couple of scientific theories that propose a global flood event, but one in which the water did not cover all land, nor kill all humans and animals outside the Ark.

Geologists Alexander and Edith Tollmann propose that the Flood of Noah was caused by a comet strike about 9500 years ago.

W. Bruce Masse (archaeologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory) and Dallas Abbott
(Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University) propose a more recent event, a comet strike in the Indian Ocean in 2807 B.C. as the cause of Noah’s Flood.

These theories explain the many flood myths throughout the world, and the Noah story – if it is interpreted in a way that is not entirely literal.

But I don’t think science and reason can support the idea that water covered all land, or that the flood killed all persons and animals outside the Ark.

We now know there is enough water. Science also believes the world was completely covered in water in the beginning. So why not again?

 

[Farsight001]

We now know there is enough water. Science also believes the world was completely covered in water in the beginning. So why not again?

This is completely untrue and you know it, buffalo. We have been over this already. Your sources have been shown to be spurious and your math completely wrong. I didn’t check back, but it might have actually been in this very thread. Why are you knowingly repeating claims that have been proven false already?