The Far East

I always wondered what the Bible take on East Asia is. They are never mentioned in the scriptures. Strange considering that even America is prophetically mentioned. Which also begs the question, what about Australia? Hrmmm

Post reply

6305 views

I always wondered what the Bible take on East Asia is. They are never mentioned in the scriptures. Strange considering that even America is prophetically mentioned. Which also begs the question, what about Australia? Hrmmm-
Were there kangaroos on the Ark; how about Llamas? The Noachian flood was local.

Post reply

6337 views

Errr... I wasn't really talking about the Noahchial Flood, specifically, but ok. By the way, you should cross-reference your assumption with Indian History. Might be a bit surprised. However, I am not really contending that point. Specifically, I am asking if anyone knows of a direct reference to the Far East in the Bible. I seen one that tries to claim that the land of Sinin was early china which was comprised of the Q'in dynasty, and that since Hebrew had characters for neither the ch or q sounds, it was translated as Sin, and Sinin, was literally the land of Sin(Q'in). Another account has that referenced to a province in Egypt. So, in particular, I am only curious about references to China for the purposes of this post DT. Not saying your wrong, just trying to stay OT here.

Post reply

6363 views

Errr... I wasn't really talking about the Noahchial Flood, specifically, but ok. By the way, you should cross-reference your assumption with Indian History. Might be a bit surprised. However, I am not really contending that point. Specifically, I am asking if anyone knows of a direct reference to the Far East in the Bible. I seen one that tries to claim that the land of Sinin was early china which was comprised of the Q'in dynasty, and that since Hebrew had characters for neither the ch or q sounds, it was translated as Sin, and Sinin, was literally the land of Sin(Q'in). Another account has that referenced to a province in Egypt. So, in particular, I am only curious about references to China for the purposes of this post DT. Not saying your wrong, just trying to stay OT here.-Well, the name the Chinese call themselves roughly translates to "Sinolese," so I think it's probably more direct than you're thinking. -And if you want cross references, the Uighurs in Russia (who live on the high plains) have a history that extends back thousands of years, and they have no flood myth whatsoever. I do not think the Inuit have one either; they are few, but they are notable exceptions. Cultural studies have shown that the flood myth is strongest in 
1. Those cultures who live near rivers and
2. Those cultures who had contact with Sumer, and Abrahamic Monotheism. -The first is obvious; we tend to build cities on rivers b/c of the water supply, and the fastest transportation of the day (boat.) -I suspect that other, hyperisolated cultures similar to the Uighurs of northern Russia have no flood stories either. -But Even with all these cultures; this is no demonstration of an actual worldwide flood. Even if the all the icecaps melted at once, there would still be dry land in the world.-[EDIT]-Topographic maps are here demonstrating what the world would look like with no ice.-http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

6264 views

I always wondered what the Bible take on East Asia is. They are never mentioned in the scriptures. Strange considering that even America is prophetically mentioned. Which also begs the question, what about Australia? Hrmmm
> 
> 
> Were there kangaroos on the Ark; how about Llamas? The Noachian flood was local.-Lets not also forget that even with both icecaps completely melted, there still isn't enough water to bury everything.

Post reply

6341 views


> Lets not also forget that even with both icecaps completely melted, there still isn't enough water to bury everything.-You are leaving out 40 days and 40 nights 0f drenching rain. )

Post reply

6258 views


> > Lets not also forget that even with both icecaps completely melted, there still isn't enough water to bury everything.
> 
> You are leaving out 40 days and 40 nights 0f drenching rain. )-...-I can't think of anything funny to say back about that. That was pretty good, lol

Post reply

6240 views

GEORGE (under Ain't Nature Wonderful): Anyone who tries to argue in favour of the story of Noah's Fludde being a reality is not a skeptic but a propagandist for creationism.-I'm certainly not going to enter into the learned debate on the waters of the earth, let alone the logistics and the food storage and the toilet arrangements, but I would like to make a few general comments. Personally, as regards Noah, I find the tale itself quite farcical ... and indeed once wrote a comedy on the subject. But since there are so many legends concerning terrible floods, and since the ancient world didn't have our means of mass communication, I've no doubt that there were umpteen floods that seemed to the people of the time to cover the earth. But that is by the by.-The real reason for my wanting to respond to George is that even if a creationist were to join us, I would rather we explained why we find his/her views absurd than refusing to talk to him/her. If some folk don't want to join in, that's fine. Also, when it comes to privacy, B_M has every right to be wary of the Internet ... as I am myself ... and I would not want anyone to feel obliged to reveal their identity. The purpose of the forum is discussion, and this should be an end in itself. -In fairness to George, I have to say that he was one of the very first contributors to this website, and for all his occasional grumpiness (!) has made a colossal contribution to our discussions. I'm grateful to B_M for his measured and polite response, as well as to David for his apt intervention. May I suggest, though, that those who want to continue discussing Noah do so on this thread, and leave wonderful Nature to wonderful Nature?

Tags:
Noah\'s Flood

Post reply

6215 views

I really and truly never even meant to get into a debate over Noah, but have problem with limiting it to this thread. I am more interested in the fact that the geological mechanisms to cause such a cataclysm are, in fact, real. -I was speaking with a colleague of mine who specializes in plate tectonics, which is quite different from my work with geophysics. According to his reply, a meteor strike of sufficient force could in fact cause a chain reaction that would be comparable. This is mainly due to the shock waves from such an impact propagating through the crust and mantle. As the wave moved deeper into the planet, the increased pressure and temperature could cause the mantle to fracture, releasing the trapped fluids, which could then be expelled via sub-sea vents and volcanic activity. -I will do some follow up research and see what I can turn up. -Cheers All.-And I hope there are no hard feelings, I am certainly not trying to troll this wonderful resource of intellectual discussion. They are rare enough without ruining the few gems I stumble across.

Post reply

6266 views

I really and truly never even meant to get into a debate over Noah, but have problem with limiting it to this thread. I am more interested in the fact that the geological mechanisms to cause such a cataclysm are, in fact, real. 
> 
> I was speaking with a colleague of mine who specializes in plate tectonics, which is quite different from my work with geophysics. According to his reply, a meteor strike of sufficient force could in fact cause a chain reaction that would be comparable. This is mainly due to the shock waves from such an impact propagating through the crust and mantle. As the wave moved deeper into the planet, the increased pressure and temperature could cause the mantle to fracture, releasing the trapped fluids, which could then be expelled via sub-sea vents and volcanic activity. 
> 
> I will do some follow up research and see what I can turn up. 
> 
> Cheers All.
> 
> And I hope there are no hard feelings, I am certainly not trying to troll this wonderful resource of intellectual discussion. They are rare enough without ruining the few gems I stumble across.-Don't worry about it. I found this site while getting ready to launch my own agnostics website, and stayed because (not only will they put up with me), but I've learned so much by the discussions here. I can only speak for myself, but when it comes to this kind of thing I live for conflict; as much as it can humble, the discovery of error in my thinking means I'm growing. I was actually going to make sure there was no hard feelings on your end; when I'm on the warpath I get aggressive.

Post reply

6223 views

Likewise, a spirited debate is worth its weight in gold to me. Such a refreshing change from the norm of non-thinking people I normally deal with.

Post reply

6232 views

Likewise, a spirited debate is worth its weight in gold to me. Such a refreshing change from the norm of non-thinking people I normally deal with.-Before I came to this site I was incredibly insulted by a guy in alt.atheism named Michael Gray. He claimed he was a physicist; but the guy immediately read everything I wrote as tripe (as if being critical of what we really know is bad.) And he went rapidly for ad hominem... -I found this site and never once have I seen this happen. I'm very happy to have you here!

Post reply

6302 views

I always wondered what the Bible take on East Asia is. They are never mentioned in the scriptures. Strange considering that even America is prophetically mentioned. Which also begs the question, what about Australia? Hrmmm-I've never heard of America being prophecied. That one's new. -To me it means that the Bible was written in a specific geographic location and bears only knowledge of those places that the writers knew. -Anne Rice wrote a book called "Christ the Lord out of Egypt," a novel talking about the formative years of Christ before he became an adult prophet. A buddy of mine also surmised that he had contact with someone knowledgeable in Eastern thought, as many of his principles more resemble Indian/Buddhist thought. His teaching of love certainly is alien to the God of the OT.

Post reply

6268 views

America is prophesied about in Daniel, as were specific events surrounding the Medo-Persian Empire, Greece, Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church. Weird, but true. -Maybe the bit about Sinin actually does fit the bill, it does mention that they came out of the east, but as far as I know of that was the only bit even remotely resembling a direct reference. -Gen 7:11..on that day all the fountains of the great deep 18 burst open and the floodgates of the heavens 19 were opened.-The reason I find this particular bit fascinating (since we ended up on the flood regardless of the original topic) is because of this:-Water In the Great Deep-Another Article -Once I stumbled across an article that estimated that the mantle contained more than 30 times the amount of water that the surface of the earth has.-Ironically, this also fits with Genesis that says that in the beginning water covered the entire planet. The water evaporating into the atmosphere would not have been enough to get rid of it all, but if it instead became trapped in the mantle, that would explain a whole lot.... except for how they knew about something that happened a few million years before man existed...

Post reply

6503 views

America is prophesied about in Daniel, as were specific events surrounding the Medo-Persian Empire, Greece, Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church. Weird, but true. 
> 
> Maybe the bit about Sinin actually does fit the bill, it does mention that they came out of the east, but as far as I know of that was the only bit even remotely resembling a direct reference. 
> 
> Gen 7:11..on that day all the fountains of the great deep 18 burst open and the floodgates of the heavens 19 were opened.
> 
> The reason I find this particular bit fascinating (since we ended up on the flood regardless of the original topic) is because of this:
> 
> Water In the Great Deep
> 
> Another Article 
> 
> Once I stumbled across an article that estimated that the mantle contained more than 30 times the amount of water that the surface of the earth has.
> 
> Ironically, this also fits with Genesis that says that in the beginning water covered the entire planet. The water evaporating into the atmosphere would not have been enough to get rid of it all, but if it instead became trapped in the mantle, that would explain a whole lot.... except for how they knew about something that happened a few million years before man existed...-Nothin much to say on the Sino thing. As for the water in the mantle--I quote: "It would still look like solid rock to you," Wysession told LiveScience. "You would have to put it in the lab to find the water in it." The only way to extract this water would be to--you guessed it--heat it to 5400 degrees Farenheit, a temperature at which it would fire out of the earth and directly into the atmosphere. -Analyzing your claim, if we added 30% more water, it would still be mathematically impossible to cover the entire world with it. -1.37Bn km^3 is the current volume of the ocean, melting the ice caps gives us another 24M, (1.61Bn km^3). 24M adds 67m. At this stage oceans are only 67m higher; so lets add another 30% to THAT number. 
1.61*0.3 = 483M km^3. that is about 2.1x the original estimate of 67m putting sea levels up an extra 143m. 143+67 = 210m above current levels. -I live in Omaha NE, and we are 332m above sea level. 332 is greater than 210, so we still can't even flood Omaha, much less the earth, even in the worst case scenario of an additional 483Mkm^3 of water. -There is simply NOT enough water on earth to flood the entire earth.
[EDITED]
For the nail in the coffin: Enough water to bury Mt. Everest. 
Mt Everest is 8,848m above sea level. For every 67m of sea level rise, we need 24M (M = million) water. 8848/67= 132. So to cover Mt. Everest, we need 24*132= 3169 million or 3.169 BILLION km^3 more water. If you see the above statement, we estimate the volume of the ocean at 1.37Bn. So, we need about 2.2 times more water than currently exists. -This is not possible.

Post reply

6263 views

[EDITED]
> For the nail in the coffin: Enough water to bury Mt. Everest. 
> Mt Everest is 8,848m above sea level. For every 67m of sea level rise, we need 24M (M = million) water. 8848/67= 132. So to cover Mt. Everest, we need 24*132= 3169 million or 3.169 BILLION km^3 more water. If you see the above statement, we estimate the volume of the ocean at 1.37Bn. So, we need about 2.2 times more water than currently exists. 
> 
> This is not possible.-I agreed in my book. Genesis stipulates that the waters covered the highest mountain by 20 feet. but there is evidence of a Black Sea flood, still disputed, but about 8-9,000 years ago. It has to be a local story. Again, kangaros, llamas, platypus, etc., two by two?

Post reply

6243 views

Mt Everest is 8,848m above sea level. For every 67m of sea level rise, we need 24M (M = million) water. 8848/67= 132. So to cover Mt. Everest, we need 24*132= 3169 million or 3.169 BILLION km^3 more water. If you see the above statement, we estimate the volume of the ocean at 1.37Bn. So, we need about 2.2 times more water than currently exists. -
Apparently both of you missed the last two paragraphs of the article ..-
"It is possible that the underground floodgates may have broken down in prehistoric times. Consequently, millions of tons of hot salt water and vapor began to burst forth. The sea level around the globe went up dramatically. The water vapor condensed and fell down hard. The rain lasted for 40 days. All the above resulted in an event that was later described as the Flood. Eventually, the water was sucked back into the depths of the planet.-The findings released by the American researchers indicate that a catastrophic event may happen again, at least from a theoretical point of view. Prof. Wysession stresses the point that the areas located beneath the underground oceans have water too. He specifically refers to the parts of the mantle that have not been researched yet. Prof. Wysession believes there is plenty of water out there. According to his estimates, the amount of water may be five times as greater as that of all the oceans on the earth's surface."-
1.37Bn Km^3 x 5 = 6.85Bn Km^3 (estimated) which is more than double the estimated 3.169Bn Km^3 that would be needed. Even if his estimates are over by 200% that would still leave 3.425Bn Km^3, which is still more than the 3.169Bn needed according to your calculations. Additionally, the method described is consistent with your statement about the delivery method. I.E. Water temperatures reached the point where they are ejected as water vapor. That under the ocean would condense almost immediately and become part of the ocean, that released into atmosphere would cool as it gained altitude until it condensed and came down as precipitation. As a third note, all of our estimates for prehistoric catastrophes are based off our current MSL(mean sea level) and our current landmass. In truth, we have no clue as to what the actual MSL and landmass was even 5000 years ago, much less 10 or 15 thousand years ago. It is all a guess. -If you are wondering about my qualifications in discussing this matter, I work in applied Geophysics and Marine Geology.-
As for the animals, again, you are basing your statement off of current species count. We KNOW from the fossil records that there was a massive die off and reduction of the number of species around the same time frame as the purported flood. What we don't know is how many species survived the mass extinction, nor what common ancestors exist for each family. In order to know that, we would need to sequence the DNA for ever species of mammal on the planet and trace them back to a common ancestor. This project would take a few decades at least. -I will say it again(I think it was on here that I said it before), I am not so much interested in whether there was a Noah, or if he stacked 2-7 of each kind (Family) of animal on a big wooden boat. What I am interested in is, how did the authors of the book, some few thousand years ago, know that there was water deep in the planet, and know how to accurately describe what it would take in order for a flood of that proportion. They have the general idea right, even if they didn't add in a bunch of scientific calculations to appease modern skeptics.

Post reply

6265 views

Mt Everest is 8,848m above sea level. For every 67m of sea level rise, we need 24M (M = million) water. 8848/67= 132. So to cover Mt. Everest, we need 24*132= 3169 million or 3.169 BILLION km^3 more water. If you see the above statement, we estimate the volume of the ocean at 1.37Bn. So, we need about 2.2 times more water than currently exists. 
> 
> 
> Apparently both of you missed the last two paragraphs of the article ..
> 
> 
> "It is possible that the underground floodgates may have broken down in prehistoric times. Consequently, millions of tons of hot salt water and vapor began to burst forth. The sea level around the globe went up dramatically. The water vapor condensed and fell down hard. The rain lasted for 40 days. All the above resulted in an event that was later described as the Flood. Eventually, the water was sucked back into the depths of the planet.
> -Yeah um... it doesn't work that way. It's not like there was this neat little hole where all the water flowed back into the ground. Again; this water was trapped in rock. Even if this water accounted for 30% of the mass of the entire earth, when you do the math this still isn't enough water to cover mount everest!

> The findings released by the American researchers indicate that a catastrophic event may happen again, at least from a theoretical point of view. Prof. Wysession stresses the point that the areas located beneath the underground oceans have water too. He specifically refers to the parts of the mantle that have not been researched yet. Prof. Wysession believes there is plenty of water out there. According to his estimates, the amount of water may be five times as greater as that of all the oceans on the earth's surface."
> 
> 
> 1.37Bn Km^3 x 5 = 6.85Bn Km^3 -Where did the factor of five come from? I just reread the article and that number seems to have materialized from thin air. ->(estimated) which is more than double the estimated 3.169Bn Km^3 that would be needed. Even if his estimates are over by 200% that would still leave 3.425Bn Km^3, which is still more than the 3.169Bn needed according to your calculations. Additionally, the method described is consistent with your statement about the delivery method. I.E. Water temperatures reached the point where they are ejected as water vapor. That under the ocean would condense almost immediately and become part of the ocean, that released into atmosphere would cool as it gained altitude until it condensed and came down as precipitation. As a third note, all of our estimates for prehistoric catastrophes are based off our current MSL(mean sea level) and our current landmass. In truth, we have no clue as to what the actual MSL and landmass was even 5000 years ago, much less 10 or 15 thousand years ago. It is all a guess. 
> 
> If you are wondering about my qualifications in discussing this matter, I work in applied Geophysics and Marine Geology.
> -All good; but lets stick to your numbers here. Where did you get that factor of five?-> 
> As for the animals, again, you are basing your statement off of current species count. We KNOW from the fossil records that there was a massive die off and reduction of the number of species around the same time frame as the purported flood. What we don't know is how many species survived the mass extinction, nor what common ancestors exist for each family. In order to know that, we would need to sequence the DNA for ever species of mammal on the planet and trace them back to a common ancestor. This project would take a few decades at least. 
> 
> I will say it again(I think it was on here that I said it before), I am not so much interested in whether there was a Noah, or if he stacked 2-7 of each kind (Family) of animal on a big wooden boat. What I am interested in is, how did the authors of the book, some few thousand years ago, know that there was water deep in the planet, and know how to accurately describe what it would take in order for a flood of that proportion. They have the general idea right, even if they didn't add in a bunch of scientific calculations to appease modern skeptics.

Post reply

6312 views

In the original thread where I posted the article, there where two links, the second article, at the end talks about the researches estimates of more than 5 times the current water content of every ocean being trapped in the mantle.

Post reply

6264 views

In the original thread where I posted the article, there where two links, the second article, at the end talks about the researches estimates of more than 5 times the current water content of every ocean being trapped in the mantle.-The mantle makes up 49% of the volume of the entire earth. If the entire mantle contains 5x as much water as the surface, we're only missing one important piece of information. How much of the mantle would have to be ejected in order to account for an increase in sea level rise of 2.2 times the current volume of water? -The article you cited said at highest, the main mineral of the mantle (perovskite) can contain 0.2% (one-twentieth of one percent) water. So that means, for every cubic km^3 of perovskite, we can extract 0.2% of its volume in water. Perovskite 's mass is 135.96g/mol. So that means, 0.27g of water is extracted from each mol of perovskite. (Using a 1g = 1ml = 1cc conversion)-We already know that for each 67m sea level rise, we need 24M water. 
The mass of the earth is 5.9742 Ã 10^24kg.-The mass of the mantle is 49% of the mass of the earth: 2.9871 x 10^24. Therefore the total mass of all the water in the mantle at 5x is -0.2e-2*(2.9871*10^24-2.9871*10^24*0.27e-1)/(2.9871*10^24)*5 = .00973%-of the total mass of the mantle. (technically I should exclude the water that already exists on the surface, as well as the atmosphere from the mass, but I'm trying to give your scenario the best possible opportunity of success.) -We've established in the best case that the primary mineral of the mantle contains 0.2% water, and at 5x (and some intense looking math) that it amounts to 1% of the total mass of the mantle. That's .5% the mass of the earth.-The ratio of nonwater to water mass is 1000:1 in the mantle. -It should be pretty clear, that to even get .22 of that water out (the previous calculation to cover everest was 2.2x) we would need to eject nearly half of the mantle to get that water. This becomes even less likely if water is stored in finite perovskite reservoirs all over the world, like in the original article.-[EDITED]-As for your other question on how the writers of the Bible had access to that information; cultural transmission beginning at a time before the founding of the Sumerian religion--the earliest known culture with a flood myth.

Post reply

6299 views

As for your other question on how the writers of the Bible had access to that information; cultural transmission beginning at a time before the founding of the Sumerian religion--the earliest known culture with a flood myth.--A misunderstanding on what I meant by how they had access to that information. I am not asking where they would have known about the flood myth, but rather, how they would have known that there was water deep deep in the Earth beyond their technological ability to detect at the time. -
Secondly, I noticed a flaw in the article you sent.(Good article by the way) In the petroleum industry, oil is found in resevoirs that pretty much mirror what was described in the article, which is to say tiny droplets are trapped in the rocks. Yet we are able to drill and pull out thousands of barrells a day from a single rock encased resevoir. How we manage that is called, in the field at least, frac jobs. High pressure sand encased in a chemical specifically designed to break down at a certain temp and pressure. The pressure fractures the rock, and forces the sand into the cracks where the chemical wrapping becomes water and draines out leaving the sand in place. The oil then begins to flow quite rapidly in most cases.-Knowing that it is not only possible, but routine, to perform this type of procedure in the crust, makes me wonder if it could happen in the mantle. All that would be necessary is for that rock containing the water to receive enough of an impact to fracture. If the temp/pressure was high enough, water could be forced out of the same subduction zones that transported it downwords to begin with. Which is to say that in theory there is a way to eject the water without ejecting the mantle at all, and we do it every day in the crust.

Post reply

6245 views

As for your other question on how the writers of the Bible had access to that information; cultural transmission beginning at a time before the founding of the Sumerian religion--the earliest known culture with a flood myth.
> 
> 
> 
> A misunderstanding on what I meant by how they had access to that information. I am not asking where they would have known about the flood myth, but rather, how they would have known that there was water deep deep in the Earth beyond their technological ability to detect at the time. 
> -In that case, I would say that it would be easy to surmise as well-water existed for the Sumerians. If we know that water comes from the ground--and it seems to be endless--then it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that a "world flood" would be caused by the "endless" supply of water underground. -> 
> Secondly, I noticed a flaw in the article you sent.(Good article by the way) In the petroleum industry, oil is found in resevoirs that pretty much mirror what was described in the article, which is to say tiny droplets are trapped in the rocks. Yet we are able to drill and pull out thousands of barrells a day from a single rock encased resevoir. How we manage that is called, in the field at least, frac jobs. High pressure sand encased in a chemical specifically designed to break down at a certain temp and pressure. The pressure fractures the rock, and forces the sand into the cracks where the chemical wrapping becomes water and draines out leaving the sand in place. The oil then begins to flow quite rapidly in most cases.
> 
> Knowing that it is not only possible, but routine, to perform this type of procedure in the crust, makes me wonder if it could happen in the mantle. All that would be necessary is for that rock containing the water to receive enough of an impact to fracture. If the temp/pressure was high enough, water could be forced out of the same subduction zones that transported it downwords to begin with. Which is to say that in theory there is a way to eject the water without ejecting the mantle at all, and we do it every day in the crust.-But as I said earlier, the re-subduction of all that water would take alot longer than the time given in the bible. And assuming the BEST case scenario of .2% water in perovskite, you still need to leech water from half of the mantle. My analysis still stands. We know that veins of other rocks than perovskite exist that would complicate this. -Why can't you accept a more reasonable explanation: 1.6% of the worlds water is sweetwater. (Fresh water). Early civilizations all lived near rivers; The Nile, Babylon, sites near the Yangtze in China. Therefore a paper calculation says that most civilizations inhabited about 4% of the world's total surface area. What do rivers do? They flood. Sometimes we get "100yr floods." A hurricane could cause deeper problems. But my point is that many many different cultures would get a flood myth this way, and it would explain the few who don't.-One of the most telling instances is the lack of a Uighur "world flood" in the northernmost wastelands of Russia. These people live in the mountains, get their water from springs, and get most of their nutrients from eating goats; very little agriculture. A proper "world flood" theory must account for this. -For all of these peoples; their world flood. But not the WHOLE world. This event would later be used by mystics in attempt to reconcile why their god(s) did this--often to punish man.

Post reply

6279 views

For all of these peoples; their world flood. But not the WHOLE world. This event would later be used by mystics in attempt to reconcile why their god(s) did this--often to punish man.-Excellent analysis.

Post reply

6291 views

For all of these peoples; their world flood. But not the WHOLE world. This event would later be used by mystics in attempt to reconcile why their god(s) did this--often to punish man.
> 
> Excellent analysis.-David... did you just agree with me on something?

Post reply

6245 views


> > Excellent analysis.
> 
> David... did you just agree with me on something? -Not unique.I've done that before.;-0

Post reply

6269 views

It is not that I can't accept the easy answer. I actually would much prefer that the easy answer be correct. However, I am the type of person that will argue both sides of an debate, until all possibilities one way or the other have been extinguished. Otherwise, we end up putting science in religions shoes and saying, "It's that way because it is," or more to the point, "It's that way because we want it to be." Part of my premise in research is to be Neutral over all. I will take the scientific approach from the perspective of both a scientist and a creationist, then do the same to religion. At the moment, I am on the swing of the pendulum that has me analyzing religion as a scientist. I have been going verse by verse through the Bible to finding what does and does not fit scientifically. But in order for me to be objective about it, I have to exhaust the possibilities. That is why I can not accept the easy answer.

Post reply

6295 views

At the moment, I am on the swing of the pendulum that has me analyzing religion as a scientist. I have been going verse by verse through the Bible to finding what does and does not fit scientifically. But in order for me to be objective about it, I have to exhaust the possibilities. That is why I can not accept the easy answer.-You should read Nahmanides' account of the first seconds of the universe as quoted in Gerald Schroeder's, 'Genesis and the Big Bang',1990, p65. A perfect description of the BB theory, derived from the first verses of Genesis in Nahmonides 'Commentary on the Torah'. Talk about mixing religion and science!

Post reply

6242 views

Will see if I can find it when I get back to land. Still have nearly a month before my feet touch dry dirt.

Post reply

6202 views

Will see if I can find it when I get back to land. Still have nearly a month before my feet touch dry dirt.-Sailing where? How?

Post reply

6310 views

I work in the oil patch, for a geophysical exploration company. Currently, I am on the MV Conti off the coast of Norway about 60 miles west of the fjords near Bergen. Been working in geophysics nor for about the last 5 years.

Post reply

6234 views

I work in the oil patch, for a geophysical exploration company. Currently, I am on the MV Conti off the coast of Norway about 60 miles west of the fjords near Bergen. Been working in geophysics nor for about the last 5 years.-As a Houstonian, in my medical pratice I knew many oil patch patients. One was a petroleum geologist who looked at Phillips seismics deep in the Gulf 25 years ago and predicted the elephants now being tapped, when and where allowed. And the NY Times today is surprised that BP is going to retap the reservoir of its failed well, as if that salt dome is somehow dangerous!!

Post reply

6284 views

The lay person is still under the impression that when we say oil 'resevoir' we are talking about a huge gaping cavernous hole in the earth. They don't understand that, like the water model we were discussing, there is only rock there, and the oil is trapped inside these rocks, and we have to crack them open to get anything out.

Post reply

6248 views

Going back to the debate, I was about to mention that it would take a pretty big meteor strike to knock that water out... and then yeah, you sealed the deal there. -I'm still extremely skeptical on the grounds of the water going through subduction again so quickly (at least in the timeline given in the Bible) but I was working towards the obvious conclusion that the force that would knock that water loose couldn't come from within earth. -But as to why Genesis didn't mention something that suggested a meteor strike, again it has me wearing my incredulous cap. Have you read the "Book of Jubilees?" It's apocryphal and is also called "The Little Genesis." I never paid much attention to the world-creation part at the time I read it--I was mining it for material on "The Watchers." But it might be another source for you to look at.

Post reply

6301 views

By the way, I live in San Antonio... will have to get together for a beer sometime ;)

Post reply

6354 views

By the way, I live in San Antonio... will have to get together for a beer sometime ;)-Perhaps at Little Rhein or Me Tierras? Perhaps Dick's on the river walk?

Post reply

6224 views

There ya go! There is also a nice little Bistro on Broadway. Would have to ask my wife the name of it. I can never remember. I'll drop a line when I am back in town (sometime next month).

Post reply

6266 views

At the moment, I am on the swing of the pendulum that has me analyzing religion as a scientist. I have been going verse by verse through the Bible to finding what does and does not fit scientifically. But in order for me to be objective about it, I have to exhaust the possibilities. That is why I can not accept the easy answer.
> 
> You should read Nahmanides' account of the first seconds of the universe as quoted in Gerald Schroeder's, 'Genesis and the Big Bang',1990, p65. A perfect description of the BB theory, derived from the first verses of Genesis in Nahmonides 'Commentary on the Torah'. Talk about mixing religion and science!-Intuitively "let there be light" sounds alot like the big bang.

Post reply

6273 views

Balance,
> It is not that I can't accept the easy answer. I actually would much prefer that the easy answer be correct. However, I am the type of person that will argue both sides of an debate, until all possibilities one way or the other have been extinguished. Otherwise, we end up putting science in religions shoes and saying, "It's that way because it is," or more to the point, "It's that way because we want it to be." Part of my premise in research is to be Neutral over all. I will take the scientific approach from the perspective of both a scientist and a creationist, then do the same to religion. At the moment, I am on the swing of the pendulum that has me analyzing religion as a scientist. I have been going verse by verse through the Bible to finding what does and does not fit scientifically. But in order for me to be objective about it, I have to exhaust the possibilities. That is why I can not accept the easy answer.-Noble. And I really mean that--no sarcasm. (Not that the opinion of text characters means anything to you! :-P )-Reread my analysis: if we go back to my statement, I started with volume and ended with mass. The mantle is ~49% of the earth's volume, and ~68% of it's mass. I meant to make an argument dealing with molar mass but honestly, abandoned it midway through when I realized how much mantle volume would need to be ejected. I fudged by asserting a 1:1 density because I was working with water, but that won't change the result dramatically. (Even if it doesn't need to be ejected, you have a bigger problem of explaining how that much water could flood to the surface, stick around for as many days it says in the bible, and then go back in without observed geological processes.) -I actually did make an error, but it wasn't that. I multiplied by a factor of 5, when this was already assumed--0.2% of water in perovskite WAS the 5x number. This worked in your favor by overstating the amount of water in the mantle to 10x instead of 5x. But we're still dealing with a finite volume, so the factor instead of being about 1% of the volume of the earth, to .002% So with ten times the amount of water and 49% of the earth's volume to work with, we still can't get the result of a flood to top Everest without nearly 1/4 of the planet's volume disappearing. -I assert that this won't make you happy, so lets work with 68% instead. -(0.2e-2*(4.062456000*10^24-4.062456000*10^24*0.27e-1))/(4.062456000*10^24) = 0.001946%
So we're down to two-hundreths of a % water composition in the mantle by mass
This makes our ratio of non-water to water 10000:1 instead of 1000:1 like before. -That should demonstrate its impossibility even further. If it wasn't possible at 1000:1, it is less possible at 10000:1. -Again, I can see this happening locally; Thermopylae is in the general vicinity and you are well aware of the volcanic fields in Africa: I could see your scenario causing 40 days of rain and flooding, but I think it is going to conflate the problem to go for the gold of a "worldwide" flood.

Post reply

6260 views

You are most likely correct there, as far water not reaching the top of mount Everest. However, this is not as discouraging to me as you might think. I think, from a skeptical perspective we could say that a global flood could happen, but it would not reach the top of Mount Everest. That would leave two avenues of research for me, one for a trigger, most likely meteoric, the other geological evidence of such a major event. The only trouble with evidence is that Geology has just as many interpretations as the bible LOL. Going to do so more digging, then I'll step up to the plate and lob more balls at you and see if you can deflect them. :)

Post reply

6244 views

You are most likely correct there, as far water not reaching the top of mount Everest. However, this is not as discouraging to me as you might think. I think, from a skeptical perspective we could say that a global flood could happen, but it would not reach the top of Mount Everest. That would leave two avenues of research for me, one for a trigger, most likely meteoric, the other geological evidence of such a major event. The only trouble with evidence is that Geology has just as many interpretations as the bible LOL. Going to do so more digging, then I'll step up to the plate and lob more balls at you and see if you can deflect them. :)-I know that we could do a force calculation--with some numbers about the kind of force it takes to force water out of perovskite, and we could scale that up to find the mass of the meteorite that would have had to hit the earth. -I think a world flood would be possible from a meteor strike event--one that would have flooded all the low-lying areas as seawater plunged up the riverbeds. This would have again--flooded the majority of civilizations at the time.

Post reply

6304 views

There are a few small problems with trying to determine that. The first is the S wave and P wave propagation through the crust and mantle. The second is determining the force needed to fracture the substrate under extreme pressure (because you would have to determine that pressure first which is two sided, downward pressure from gravity, and outward pressure from the core, neither of which will be equally distributed.) The next problem would be to determine the time frame. There is contradictions in regards to the age of the meteorites listed, but we could probably thin that down if we had an approximate age.

Post reply

6281 views

There are a few small problems with trying to determine that. The first is the S wave and P wave propagation through the crust and mantle. The second is determining the force needed to fracture the substrate under extreme pressure (because you would have to determine that pressure first which is two sided, downward pressure from gravity, and outward pressure from the core, neither of which will be equally distributed.) The next problem would be to determine the time frame. There is contradictions in regards to the age of the meteorites listed, but we could probably thin that down if we had an approximate age.-The chicxulub asteroid was 10 kilomters across, but there is no evidence at the time that it caused a huge flood, but lots of volcanic acivity, and loss of the dinosaurs. Your strike would have to be bigger. By how much?

Post reply

6301 views

Doesn't necessarily have to be bigger. If it were a single event, it would either have to be bigger, or strike at a key location, like a fault boundary where the crust is weaker. The same effect could also be caused by a few smaller strikes within a very short time span, such as might happen if our solar system passed through a debris field or earth caught the trailing side of a larger comet. There are theories out there that such an event occured. However, two more problems presented themselves during the limited time I had to research today. First is dating meteor strikes, the second is the acknowledged fact that many more strikes have happened than we know of, the majority of which are suspected to have occured in the oceans which make them even more difficult to find. Google earth does show some strange anomalies on the sea bed, but I am hesitant to try to differentiate between volcanic and meteoric formations based soley off satelite imagery. -A little OT but still relevant.-Proterzoic "Snowball"-more-and more-I thought it was interesting in the last link that they flat out state that the earth has a method of preventing this from occuring. There are contentions about this theory, namely that deep mantle waters such as those produced by volcanic action produce the same type of sedimentary layers.

Post reply

6369 views

There are a few small problems with trying to determine that. The first is the S wave and P wave propagation through the crust and mantle. The second is determining the force needed to fracture the substrate under extreme pressure (because you would have to determine that pressure first which is two sided, downward pressure from gravity, and outward pressure from the core, neither of which will be equally distributed.) The next problem would be to determine the time frame. There is contradictions in regards to the age of the meteorites listed, but we could probably thin that down if we had an approximate age.
> 
> The chicxulub asteroid was 10 kilomters across, but there is no evidence at the time that it caused a huge flood, but lots of volcanic acivity, and loss of the dinosaurs. Your strike would have to be bigger. By how much?-That's exactly the critical direction I was going: by determining how big the strike was, we can determine quickly whether or not a meteor strike would be likely--Genesis doesn't talk about anything like a nuclear winter, so we know that there is an upper bound. We'll use Chixulub for that.

Post reply

6306 views

So we would need one or more strikes at the same time period that were large enough to cause major geologic instability, but not nuclear winter. One advantage that we have is that there is recent data on volcanic eruptions that might discuss cloud dissipation time etc. So, according to the Genesis, it would have to have ejected enough water vapor via volcanic activity to rain for 40 days, and would also have had to trigger sub-sea volcanic activity. May an index of meteor strikes within areas of active volcano chains could help narrow the field as well. So we would now have three constraints:Time, location, and magnitude. What would also be helpful would be an angle of impact, if that data were available. The angle would directly affect P-wave and S-wave propagation as well as force of impact. One of the hard parts of identifying the geological formations for proving a theory like this is the age of the event. 10k years or so of heat and pressure could be enough to complete erase the lower geological evidence. Surface events are easier to identify in some ways, despite the effects of erosion and human interference, but the best evidence would likely be found in the crustal sedimentary layers which should contain a carbon rich layer from the massive biological destruction such an event would cause.

Post reply

6409 views

As an add onto that, while the meteor impact you listed gives us an upper layer, the recorded impacts that didn't cause a flood would give us a lower boundary.

Post reply

6221 views

ZPE-Plasma model of the Universe-While I note that this guys is an obvious biblical creationist, I also note that his research is quite thorough, and the model does make more sense than dark matte and quantum fluctuations spontaneously generating the universe. Just for shits and giggles, give it a read and, if you feel it is necessary, feel free to do as I did and ignore all references made to creation, and focus solely on the physics and the evidence provided. -I am still reading the the reference material that he uses to support his claim, and reading over his responses to criticism and what not. I know I have mentioned Setterfield's research before, but, hey, if the shoe fits...

Post reply

6346 views

For the info direct from the horses mouth, as it were, I looked up the research paper instead of relying on the news article. -Extract p.1 of the introduction:-The lower mantle accounts for 62% of Earth's volume,
so even if lower mantle minerals have low H2O solubility
(< 0.1 wt%), the lower mantle may contain more water than
the Earth's oceans. How much water the lower mantle can
hold is a subject of some debate, and considerable discussion
in this volume. Estimates for the water solubility in silicate
perovskite range from a few ppm [Bolfan-Casanova et al.,
2003] up to 0.2...0.4 wt% (i.e., 2000...4000 ppm H2O by
weight) [Litasov et al., 2003; Murakami et al., 2002]. The
water solubility for magnesiowÃ¼stite (~16% of the lower
mantle) is more uncertain, with measurements from zero
[Bolfan-Casanova et al., 2002] to 0.2 wt% H2O [Murakami
et al., 2002]. For lower mantle solubilities of 0.05 to 0.2
wt%, the lower mantle may hold 1 to 5 times the water in
the Earth's oceans.-
The article is a good read at any rate, and might be interesting to branch out into another world of science other than biology for a bit.-Hope you enjoy.

Post reply

6297 views

Xeno, as a side note to that previous post, you quoted the mantle at 49% of the earths mass, when the geophysicist count it at 69%. -I found this article on metorites as it actually shows a scientist paying some attention to the pre-modern era calendars and the scientific/mathematical abilities of ancient civilizations.

Post reply

6338 views

For the info direct from the horses mouth, as it were, I looked up the research paper instead of relying on the news article. 
> 
> Extract p.1 of the introduction:
> 
> The lower mantle accounts for 62% of Earth's volume,
> so even if lower mantle minerals have low H2O solubility
> (< 0.1 wt%), the lower mantle may contain more water than
> the Earth's oceans. How much water the lower mantle can
> hold is a subject of some debate, and considerable discussion
> in this volume. Estimates for the water solubility in silicate
> perovskite range from a few ppm [Bolfan-Casanova et al.,
> 2003] up to 0.2...0.4 wt% (i.e., 2000...4000 ppm H2O by
> weight) [Litasov et al., 2003; Murakami et al., 2002]. The
> water solubility for magnesiowÃ¼stite (~16% of the lower
> mantle) is more uncertain, with measurements from zero
> [Bolfan-Casanova et al., 2002] to 0.2 wt% H2O [Murakami
> et al., 2002]. For lower mantle solubilities of 0.05 to 0.2
> wt%, the lower mantle may hold 1 to 5 times the water in
> the Earth's oceans.
> 
> 
> The article is a good read at any rate, and might be interesting to branch out into another world of science other than biology for a bit.
> 
David's more the biologist here as the retired Doctor. I'm the young computer science whippersnapper. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_%28geology%29-I've now seen volume estimates between 49 and 80% for the Earth's mantle. Not that Wikipedia should ever be seen as an ultimate source... -
> Hope you enjoy.

Post reply

6293 views

Also as an ironic side note, the last extinction event was supposedly around the end of the last Ice Age, around 10000BC. What is strange to me is that the entire human race can be traced about to a small common group of ancestors between 6000 and 130000 BC. Isn't it strange how all these scientific coincidences just keep slowly stacking up.

Post reply

6229 views

Also as an ironic side note, the last extinction event was supposedly around the end of the last Ice Age, around 10000BC. What is strange to me is that the entire human race can be traced about to a small common group of ancestors between 6000 and 130000 BC. Isn't it strange how all these scientific coincidences just keep slowly stacking up.-Read my previous reply. It is not possible--at all--for there to be enough water to flood the ENTIRE world.

Post reply

6281 views

Ironically, this also fits with Genesis that says that in the beginning water covered the entire planet. The water evaporating into the atmosphere would not have been enough to get rid of it all, but if it instead became trapped in the mantle, that would explain a whole lot.... except for how they knew about something that happened a few million years before man existed...-I went back into my old notes regarding Egyptian culture. They would harvest their clay for their pottery down near riverbanks... and of course, in the Bible man came from clay. Since water is universally considered a "breath of life" as it were, it makes sense that the writers of Genesis would consider the earth being made in this way.

Post reply

6223 views

Ironically, since we have been discussing bible versus nature, Live Science just posted this article.

Post reply

6222 views

Ironically, since we have been discussing bible versus nature, Live Science just posted this article.-It's kind of interesting you brought up the Red Sea. -The last I'd heard about that, was that they had strong suggestions that there was a mistranslation of "reed" to "red" sea. Apparently there's a region adjacent to the Red sea that was very very shallow--enough for people to cross. But marshy enough that chariots couldn't move. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Sea-The lack of archaeological evidence of chariots beneath the Red Sea leads me to put more backing behind the "Reed Sea" hypothesis. -Alternatively, I also know that low-tide events create "escape routes" as well. Down near Cabo San Lucas there's a "lover's point" you can go to, where you can walk to the area in the evening and then be "trapped" in a cove until the next tide.

Post reply

6316 views

Some interesting articles on that.-Chariot wheels, or not?-Heh.. damn conspiracy theories.

Post reply

6331 views

New take on Ron Wyatt:-http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm-Until we can get those things out of the water (Damn Egyptians!) we won't know for sure.

Post reply

6335 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

The Far East (Religion)

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

ZPE-Plasma model

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East

The Far East