The Grand Canyon is proof of Noah's flood. In 2011 there was an earthquake in Japan that changed entire landscapes and created a salt lake where there never was on in just hours not millions and billions of years.
Its not a "World Flood" or a "Deluge" it was a Localized Mesopotamian Flood, in Genesis, Edan was around the Euphrates[Mesopotamia], Noah landed his ark on Mount Ararat [Northern Mesopotamia], thus a LOCAL FLOOD and proves its a Recycled Myth, it was berosus [3rd Cent BC Hellenistic Scholar] whom first Translated the Babylonian/Sumer Flood Accounts into GREEK [Same language as Septuagint, Hebrew Originals are myth], this makes "Berosus" the progenitor author of Genesis.
CITIES MORE THAN 2THOUSAND YRS AGO HAVE BEEN FOUND IN ISRAEL, PALESTINE ETC. CITIES THAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT. GIANT SKULLS HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND. EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS REAL BECAUSE THERE IS EVIDENCE.
ok, how Noah legend disprove evolution? It says it happened about 5000yrs ago, but living creatures have been kept evolving by million years. Then the Bible is a collection of stories from the middle-east areas, can it implies that whenever they were thinking about "a fload that took all the world" was just referring to that specific area? And is talking about "all the animals" can be only be referred to the domesticated ones?
If it wasn't for Hayk, I wouldn't be here. He came down from Ararats Lerr, and founded my earliest ancestry. He's my G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.Great Grandfather x 20 !
@MinisterQuietBuck Where's the worldwide layer of mud? The jumbles of human, animal, and structural remains in the same strata? Where did all of that excess water go? Why does every civilization and religious belief in that area before Christianity have the exact same story with different names?
@GoGojiraGo: Explain petrified trees through multiple layers. Explain bones grouped as flood pools would do. Humans, study and you'll find they are the water laid rock layer. Water, study, for it went back into the ground as well as became the oceans we see today. Yes, flood story is all over, for those who escaped it (Noah's family) is who told the story. Christianity is bogus, scripture tells us this, Isaiah 45:20-21. Christians are the heathens Messiah often mentions.
@eleminatus: Go do the studies. I can sit here all day and tell you but you won't understand nor believe till you do the work yourself. As a one time atheist, I had to do the studies myself to understand.
@MinisterQuietBuck well aint that something! So you claim that there are evidence, but instead of just giving a couple of papers or research points, you tell me to go and do the research myself! There goes your credibility. And on the side note - I already studied it. I know the impossibility of the Noahs flood. So you can whether attempt to have a decent debate and provide at least points of reference to your evidence, or join the ranks of lunatics!
@eleminatus: I am not here to spoon feed you, which clearly you desire. If you cannot open up Google and do your own research. Then there is no hope for you. Go about life believing what everyone tells you instead of looking anything up for yourself. Fact you resort to name calling proves you have done no research but cling to the parroting of others. For a person w/ facts has no need to resort to name calling.
@MinisterQuietBuck I havent done any name calling. Yet! You see, for a person who talks big, you most certainly dont put those words to actions. You claim to have evidence yet you tell me to go find them myself. Its fallacious on the very basic level. If you truly had them it would not be a big deal to give a couple of references. I would also suggest you get off that very high horse of yours. Just assuming you are right does not mean you are!
>"I am not here to spoon feed you, which clearly you desire. If you cannot open up Google and do your own research."
Ahhhh, yes....the old "Point at everything in existence and proclaim 'The Evidence is somewhere in THAT direction'."
Just because you can Google something doesn't make it true. I can Google items about Muslims 'proving' Jesus didn't die on the cross; I can Google items about us all being clone by spacemen.
@LordCustos3: I am so sorry for not being exactly specific for this digital generation. Use Google, go to a library, check out books, get scripture from other countries, study flood documents from multiple countries, etc. Sadly I did not assume I had to be so specific when one does studies.
Pro 25:17 Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour's house; lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee.
I have done all these things. This is why I don't believe the fable of Noah's Ark.
Not only is the story ridiculous and impossible....it paints Yahweh as a petulant child breaking all his own toys in a tantrum as punishment for his own mistakes. (Though that applies to the entire OT as well.)
From the Principia Discordia:
Dear God; This is to inform you that your current position as deity is herewith terminated due to gross incompetence.
6:10....`Russian - Turkish Border` ..... `Surrounded by Top Secret Missile sites`..Wtf??? Only a brainless can believe these.And i was seriously watching this video.
There have been many floods in history, true. However, every race of man from Asia to South America can point to some sort of universal flood legend dating back ten thousand years or so passing thru their forefathers. Where did it come from? Archaelogists have already proven thru escavations of Mesopotamia of a very severe flood which occured in the region about that time. Noone has all the answers so people should shut up before discounting any talk (which is always easy to do,isn't it?)
@tbudzol The bible says there was a flood 4400 years ago, there are trees older than that. There never was a global flood that killed all but 6 people.
And that is your mistake in life. .You apparently believe that God should allow only good things to happen on earth and interfere with the decisions of man....man who was given freedom of choice by God. Did it ever occur to you that life on earth is just one big test? Who told you everything here is supposed to be paradise?
@houseofhorus The "theory" is NOT full of holes. If you're getting your facts from creationists, your facts are wrong.
As for flooding - there IS evidence of localized flooding in one area or another at various points in the earth's history. But there is NO evidence - not one single solitary piece, whether it be geological, biological, meteorological, paleontological or otherwise - to suggest that there was ever a catastrophic world-wide flood.
Ahhh.....thanks. A voice of reason. All us "skeptics" ask for is definitive proof. That's all. So easy for the misinformed to take ramblings or bullshit spread by other uninformed, and we have a mad cycle of baloney.
Check my comments to some guy on the "In Search of...Bermuda Triangle" in regards to his claim on Sonar?Radar not working there.
@houseofhorus There is plenty of doubt we have evolved, but atheists&evolutionists don't want you to know this.See my channel and esp. the creation science playlists. The Genesis Conflict one by Dr. Veith is one of the best ones to start with. He's a former hardcore atheist with a Ph.D. in zoology who became creationist due to the weight of evidence. As to the flood, there's tons of evidence for this&many confirmations of it. I have a playlist on that (creation--the evidence for the flood).
@TruthIsLife7 Yes, there is plenty of "doubt" about evolution - among the fringe. There is hardly "plenty of evidence" for creationism.
Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I hear this repeated over and over and over again by creationists, and it is simply untrue. The only 'debate' about evolution is the one among creationists and "IDers."
There is no "creation/evolution debate" among mainstream (read: non-fringe) science. in scientific circles, The debate was settled a long time ago.
@gregrutz obviously -- but why couldn't we have done both? -- other hominids didn't build boats -- only homo sapiens did (& still do) -- neither explanation claims to have occurred over the same time frame
@gregrutz because "you can't get all the animals on a boat" is the reason why evolution and the story of noah's ark are mutually exclusive? that's why the theory of earlier hominids cannot coexist with a tale of "modern man"? is english your first language?
@gregrutz no, you are slow, but one types slowLY(it's called an adverb) - science(which i'm surprised you believe you know something about, given that you cannot make, or follow a logical argument)grants the status of "law" only once "hypothesis", then "theory" have been satisfied - maybe once you look these terms up, you'll comprehend that only scientific laws are proven - there is evidence for both evolution & the flood, but neither is proved -- & none suggest that they share the same period
@lukafafrenz No, theories don't grow up to become laws. Laws and 'proofs' only apply to math.
Geologists went looking for flood evidence 200 years ago. They didn't find any.
Floods don't make distinct layer or different kinds of rocks. Floods don't sort fossils.
Evolution has been accepted as happening because of all the evidence. What evidence do you have for a flood. Tell us there are shells on mountains please.
@gregrutz us? you seem to be the only one dense enough not to understand my original statement--i've no desire to repeat myself(this will be my last reply)--hypotheses can fail & theories can be modified, but if a scientific law does either, then every conclusion based upon it fails(google can be your friend)--albert einstein once said;"imagination is more important than knowledge"--you seriously lack both--i've enough of both to appreciate that the concepts of evolution & the flood can coexist
@DebateRobo Evolution explains why we see primitive fossils below complex animal and plant fossils. There is no flood mud layer with all the fossils mixed together. The Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon is wind blown sand from a desert, it is between layers of limestone.
Explain all the layers in the Grand Canyon. And why the dinosaurs walked half way up the hill. LOL
@gregrutz - Several evolutionists did lab studies on the arc of the wave shapes in the coconino sandstone and concluded that it looked similar to ocean sand movement. Also, name something that is primitive. and unique in terms of fossils. Also, the footprints le
actually the flood proof is all around us and is so simple to see that only those who serve the AntiChrist and those who are just stupid will miss the facts.Like sponges fosselson the rim of the Grand canyan whale skelletons 12 miles high in mountans so so many its unargurable the flood happen.Unless you are willingly ignorant
Hey tubewatcher and leonardschool!!!,I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone,BUT DO IT P.M.!!! You two have takin up 5 pages,maybe more havent looked.
I do believe there was a flood and I do believe that an ark was built, however I dont think it was a global flood like the bible says, more like a localized flood.
@fordxbgtfalcon Your beliefs are screwed up. No ark needs to be built because of a local flood. The people simply walk away. A local flood would fail to destroy most of mankind and thus doesn't make sense to even be mentioned in the Bible. Fact is, a global flood that killed most humans and animals is remembered by cultures on all inhabited continents, and so that proves it was global enough to affect all continents / cultures. Even this documentary mentions that, but you seem to ignore it.
@NorthForkFisherman look it up on youtube...I do have an education little man. I think your parents should limit your time on the web. Hey, get a snack and off to bed with you little guy. Sweet dreams!!
@VIKING33NY HAHAHAHAH. YouTube! And education from clown college perhaps! Tell you what, obvious troll, get published. And then we'll talk. Cause I'd just love to dump the entire weight of the Opeche right on your empty little head. 'Cause really, it's about the salt, and heat.
@VIKING33NY Yep. A troll. I'm going to gather some notes and show you how this is done. If I require any further lip from you, I'll take it from your father's zipper. So, let's get started: The Opeche Shale is a formation that extends from the Dakotas down to Texas. In the middle of this formation is a deposit of salt: 91 meters thick.
@NorthForkFisherman I love the fact that you're trying to PROVE to me that you're smart...lol It's so funny. Stop cutting and pasting someones work. I know you're an idiot..ok? Relax you mental midget. I'm not going to quiz you on stuff that way over your head..lol You are funny and if you were here, I'd slap your ears to the other side of your head...Caio!
@VIKING33NY The configuration that this basin takes is very similar to the playas and evaporative basins seen today. Also, this salt deposit contains no pollen from modern sources. All comes from Permian plants. Now the area of salt deposition is 188,400 sq km. Dividing by 2 to get the average thickness of about 45 meters. This equals about 9 trillion cu meters of NaCl (continued)
@VIKING33NY The density of salt is 2160 kg/cu meter, so this represents the evaporation of 540,000 cu km of seawater. To evaporate this much sea water and leave the salt requires 10^24 joules of heat energy. That's more than twice enough to raise the temp of the Earth's atmosphere to 100 deg C. Ergo, Noah would've been cooked and all life extinguished. Further, there is 3100 feet of salt under Detroit. Again, too much heat. (continued)
@VIKING33NY Of course, none of this matters with out data to back it up: Wilgus, Cheryl K. and William T. Holser, 1984. "Marine and Nonmarine Salts of Western Interior, United States," AAPG Bulletin. p. 765-766, and for the chemistry info, feel free to refer to any college chemistry text. It'll have all the table for heat of formation and evaporative processes. And this is just one evaporite deposit we've examined. There are hundreds!
@HolyRevelation Uh, no. As long as people prefer ignorance over education I will not be silenced nor dissuaded. If these clearly fallacious bronze age myths continue to be taken as literal fact, I'll fight them to my last breath. The future of humanity depends on people who can and do think clearly. People who regard Genesis as fact clearly do not.
@NorthForkFisherman If you think it's your JOB to make everyone on youtube, believe everything you believe, you're foolish. As long as we all stay respectful, it's OK to disagree.
I'm not silencing anyone, if you wish to debate someone, be like respectful people and send them a personal message.
@HolyRevelation When people are respectful, they do recieve it in return. Those that are obvious trolls, I deal with them as they deserve. And I'm not so grandiose in my vision to think that I'm going to change the entire world. I just want to open one mind. And the way to do it is to put right here in this public forum where everyone can see the data and ask about it. This is supposed to be an educational channel here. So the more, the merrier. As long as they stay on subject, I'm good.
@VIKING33NY Nice try douchebag. Get published and then maybe I'll have some more time for you. And I have proven you wrong. You just don't have enough of a frontal lobe to see it. So here's what I'm going to do for you. Until you can bring your "A game", you'll be ignored. Not blocked, because you're simply not worth the time, but simply ignored. Bring some data next time child, cause I'll just rip it apart otherwise.
@VIKING33NY Then when you start looking at the number of other points in support of this (carbonates and heat of formation, total biomass of carbon found, meteoric impacts, etc) you see that not only did a Noachian Flood not happen, it shows that it couldn't have happened. So, game, set , and match. Nothing like a little full-frontal science to serve up nice side of troll. Next time you come to an intellectual gunfight, don't bring a butterknife. I've enjoyed our little chat. At your expense.
Dont confuse my pity for astounding ignorance and a pathetic failure of his public school system for anger. I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow.
I'll tell you one thing for sure. You're not as cool as I am. You've been throwing "insults of mass debunktion" ever since you came on here. I've been getting the little jibe in here and there too. But that's not science. You're depending on insults to try and scare away your detractors. You imagine you can get away with it, since you're in the majority. You don't see, that by doing that, you lose your "majority status" to those who can spot the B.S.
i'm far cooler than you could ever be my little delusional friend
"You've been throwing "insults of mass debunktion""
no, i've been calling a spade a spade. you've been insulting yourself. calling you and idiot, just after you've said something idiotic, is pointing out the obvious
"I've been getting the little jibe in here and there too"
but you havent
"you're in the majority"
you stupid fuck. US is almost 77% christian, atheists make up 2.3% of pop.
@LeonardSecond Yea totally! I even wondered how he captured all the flies and ants and kept them from starving to death. The more questions one asks, the more rediculous the whole scenario becomes!! I think the story has been taken too literal for long enough!
Did you realize that the Ark's dimensions are optimal for a barge on the high seas? ow would Noah have figured out those dimensions? After all, the story of the Babylonians from which it is supposed to have originated gives the shape as a cube - which is ridiculous!
No, really! The arks dimensions were found to be optimal by a South Korean team of Naval architects who did a study on the stability and seaworthiness of the ark, based on the notion that it was a wooden vessel, and based on the stated dimensions given in Genesis.
The paper is called:
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
(1) In this study, the safety of Noah’s Ark in the severe environments imposed by waves and winds during the Genesis Flood was investigated. Three major safety parameters—structural safety, overturning stability, and seakeeping quality—were evaluated altogether to assess the safety of the whole system.
(2) The concept of ‘relative safety’, which is defined as the relative superiority in safety compared to other hull forms, was introduced and 12 different hull forms with the same displacement were generated for this purpose. Evaluation of these three safety parameters was performed using analytical tools. Model tests using 1/50 scaled models of a prototype were performed for three typical hull forms in order to validate the theoretical analysis.
(3) Total safety index, defined as the weighted average of three relative safety performances, showed that the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres.
The whole paper is online. You can read it (even though you won't want to).
"The whole paper is online. You can read it (even though you won't want to)"
Oh no, just the opposite in fact. i enjoyed the read. It's not quite as ludicrous as a virgin birth, global flood, talking snakes, and living in a whale for 3 days, but it's close! It also failed to give the credentials of the authors, it WASNT published in a credible science journal, the "work" wasn't peer reviewed before publication, and in fact was published in a CREATIONIST publication!
But you read it, and so? What did you think of the results?
The results saying - that the Ark strikes a balance between stability without being too stable (resulting in overly strong restoring forces that would have caused the passengers to be in a constant state of extreme discomfort. And strong enough despite being made of wood, to handle the environment.
Looks like the designer (God) was pretty "clued up" on the dimensions required. You can't just SAY it's invalid.
"Wouldn't one have been written by now, if it could be?"
most likely people arent aware of it if it wasn't published in a credible science journal.
"Looks like the designer (God) was pretty "clued up"
this is a false dichotomy logical fallacy. EVEN IF the paper was legit, and EVEN IF it's possible to build an ark that big and EVEN IF they found an ark on/near ararat, that STILL wouldn't prove a global flood OR your god you moron! There's ZERO empirical evidence to support either one.
We're not proving the global flood by the evidence that the ark was exceptiohnally well designed. We're just providing evidence to support that part of the account.
you've provided ZERO evidence for a global flood, while i provided you with dozens of reasons why we know the flood could NOT have happened. Leave the ark out of it. There's no genetic bottleneck, the fossils don't support it, and follow a Darwinian progression. It's mind numbing that any adult can look at the evidence and not laugh out loud at the absurdity of it all. It's by far the stupidest fairy tale in all of fiction and takes truly brainwashed unthinking uneducated and gullible to believe
The Darwinian progression - sea life to fish to amphibians, to reptiles to birds and mammals, is only Darwinian because the order of evolution was based on the general order that the fossils were found in. But this "Darwinian order" is also the order of burial of rising flood waters. Hmmm? Funny that!
Maybe all of life actually evolved in 40 days and 40 nights while the flood happenned! Then we're both right! We can be best buddies! Oh yeah. Can't wait for that!
@tubewatch59 " is only Darwinian because the order of evolution was based on the general order that the fossils were found in"
No, it's called Darwinian Progression because it shows the simpler life forms at the bottom, with more complex ones at top. Exactly as evolution predicts
"is also the order of burial of rising flood waters. Hmmm? Funny that!"
You're a fucking loon! You don't think a single dinosaur could outrun any other mammals?! Not a one made high ground with the elephants?
Actually (and you know this already - you just haven't thought it through yet) there is no progression from simple life to complex life.
All life has the same conserved core processes. Other than an assertion that it must be so, there is absolutely no evidence that life "back then" was simpler than life is now. It's simply a matter of habitat and the creatures that survive there.
And you haven't studied the genetic makeup of the animals in the fossil record either.
So where is the evidence that life was simpler back then? There isn't any, only evolutionist guesses and deductions that - since life must have come from a simple begining, then early life MUST have been simpler than it is now.
Opinion! If our roles were reversed, I'd be calling you a liar by now, but they're not, and I haven't. You've made it clear you really believe this stuff!
All we're seeing is that man and other animals didn't live where the dinosaurs did. That figures. Animals have various territories. But, I'd think that (like I said earlier) one day, a "bunny" may just show up along with the dinosaurs. Hey, they're already showing up around "55 million years old" (your time) so there isn't too much to go before they'll be rabbit fossils contemporary with the dinosaurs. They'll never be precambrian, because they're land animals.
"All we're seeing is that man and other animals didn't live where the dinosaurs did"
wow you're a nut. not a single one ever killed man? not a single tool designed to hunt dinosaurs has ever been found. not a single footprint in the same strata, not a single bone even
"so there isn't too much to go before they'll be rabbit fossils contemporary with the dinosaurs"
i'll bet any amount of money you're wrong. the statement is so idiotic, i'm beginning to think you're a troll instead of stupid
There have been footprints with dinosaurs, but that evidence HAD to be discounted at any cost. See, you're mantra's only are effective when propped up by ignorance. But there was evidence of disnosaur and human footprints together. But that cannot exist in the evolutionists world, so we have a situation where you're kind of hoping the public will be either too scared to defend evidence that gets rubbished, or else (even better) they don't even know about such evidences.
Hey! According to YOUR people, rabbits extend all the way back to 55 million years ago. What's so dramatic about them being found just a teensy weensy 10 million years earlier still. And if that happenned, you wouldn't even bat an eyelid.
In fact you didn't even bat an eyelid when Tiktaalic was shown to be an evolutionary irrelevancy after those pre-existing animal tracks were found that (in your scheme of dating) pre-dated Tiktaalic (R.I.P.) by 19 million years.
You fucking unthinking moron. what? you're going to argue plants ran up the mountains now too? we see primitive plants buried in pre-cambrian sediments. why didnt any pterodons make it to high ground? how are footprints also sorted? (how are there footprints and raindrops burred to begin with?) if there was overcrowding before the flood, why no human remains on mountaintops? why are human ARTIFACTS ONLY buried on uppermost strata? did they climb mountains too? you're either stupid, or dishonest.
The plants are merely different. There's no evidence they're primitive. More dogma.
But you're not an unthinking moron, you are "Spartacus"! :-< Nahh, actually you're more like Marcus Licinius Crassus. :-)
Why? Because the animals closer to the coasts got overwhelmed and buried in the initial Tsunami's. Man wouldn't have lived with Dinosaurs. And anything (including dinosaurs) that survived the initial entombments, would have rotted away during the flood...
"Maybe all of life actually evolved in 40 days and 40 nights while the flood happenned! "
...and maybe Flying Spaghetti Monster reached out with his noodly appendage, and created a magic, 10K headed purple monkey to magically re-sort the fossils after your non-existent flood, to only make it appear life evolved? you're not the only one who can imagine ludicrous things with no supporting evidence. why not show evidence for a flood before imagining what might have happened afterwards?
@tubewatch59 "You can't just SAY it's invalid." Actually I can. There was no ark because there was no global flood. The geology simply does not support such an assumption and this can demonstrated by the careful examination of just one formation, it's chemical constituents, and heat of formation. Carbonates and the processes that make them. Or we could look at palyonogical data and see the same thing.
Unlike "some" people around here (yes, I'm referring to LeonardSecond - who carry on his arguments with 95% insults, 5% objections) you're reference to geology is more interesting.
So whats this problem about limestone you're referring to, in more detail?
@tubewatch59 The mass of limestone and it's corresponding mineral makeup and the process by which these minerals form (and other lines of evidence) give a direct indication that one, not only was there not a global flood, and two, while a great portion sedimentary rocks formed from offshore deposition, the amount of time requires was much longer that the flood year. This will take some time to cover and will have references posted for your followup.
OK, I'll be interested to read your main points. You're talking perhaps about the idea that limestone is formed in corals and as the result of various skeletons and shells of small sea creatures, which would require rather larger amounts of time than the flood year would allow?
I'm also interesed in what you had previously mentioned as the energy of formation of limestone (or something along those lines).
@tubewatch59 Well, that is part of it, but the main gist is that it's the chemical composition of carbonates themselves thats the key point here. Consider: 1,300 feet of Ordovician limestone and dolomite, the Red River, Stony Mountain and Stonewall Formations, collectively known as the Bighorn Dolomite. (Data from W. H. Hunt Trust Larson #1 well, Mckenzie Co., North Dakota.) These cannot be flood deposits simply for reasons of heat production in their formation.
@tubewatch59 Formation of carbonate rock liberates about 1,207 kilocalories per mole ("General Chemistry" Wittier et al, 1992, p. 576). A column 400 meters high with a cross section area of 1 square meter would include 400 million cc of carbonate. Since the density of the carbonate is around 2.5 g/cc this means that there are 10 million moles of carbonate deposited over each square meter. Multiply this by 1,207,000 calories per mole to get the amount of energy required per square meter.
I found out interestingly, that 1 mole of CaCO3 is just about on 100 grams (which is a nice neat figure). So we can talk about the heat released as 1207000 calories per mole ( = calories per 100 grams) so the calories per gram would work out to be 1207000/100 = 12070 calories per gram ~= 12.1kCal/gram = 4.1858 x 12.1 kJ/gram ~= 50.65kJ/gram.
So the heat released by the precipitation of each gram of CaCO3 = 50.65kJ.
Sure. So you're saying that in order for each gram of CaCO3 to form, then about 51kJ of heat would be released, and given that the specific heat of CaCO3 is ~=0.84 kJ / kg / K = 0.84 J/(gram.K), then in other words, to form reach gram of CaCO3 requires the heating of each said gram to a temperature above ambient of around 51000/0.84 ~= 60700 degrees Kelvin!!! Which is a tad too hot. Hmmm!
There's one thing I'd like to get cler though. You mentioned originally that the heat of formation of CaCO3 per mole (100g) was ~= 1,207 kilocalories per mole ("General Chemistry" Wittier et al, 1992, p. 576).
Can you quote me that equation? (I don't have access to that book.)
@tubewatch59 Actually, I can do one better. NIST webook. Link is on your page in the comments block. I'd respond more quickly, but I'm at work. And starting to get busy. But please continue.
That NIST webbook is tricky (unless I suppose for those who know how to use it). But I did find that value in my SI chemical data book. It's actually not 1207 kCal/mol but 1207 kJ/mol but not too worry. It's all much of a muchness in the sense that my "temperature per gram" estimate would now be around 60700K/4.1858 = 14500K which is still rather more than a tad too hot!! OUCH!
But wait. Because I think this is fairly relevant. In the SI chemical data book it says that the heat of formation value is: "the standard enthalpy of formation at 25 C (298 K) for 1 mole of the substance in the state specified from it's elements in their standard states (stable forms at 1 atm (101.3 kPa) pressure and 25 C).
It's relevant because we're talking about a process which basically burns calcium metal with oxygen gas, then combines that with CO2 gas...
So while there would indeed be a lot of energy liberated by burning millions of tonnes of calcium metal and combing that with millions of more tonnes of oxygen gas and CO2 gas, I don't believe that kind of a chemical reaction is what we'd have been dealing with in the flood.
That would be like saying that the salt in the ocean must have been formed slowly because the heat given off by burning sodium metal with chlorine gas would have been too great in a single event.
I'd be thinking instead that we'd be dealing with chemicals already in aqueous solution that precipitated to form carbonate deposits.
Now, would you agree with that? I may still be wrong about the whole idea of limestone being formed suddenly, but do you see the point I'm making about this particular argument? I'm saying we can't apply the enthaply of formation of CaCO3 as it's not applicable in this case. Rather, something more like the heat of precipitation. Yes?
From what I've read, it seems that CaCO3 can be dissolved in sea water - more so if the water is colder and the pressure is higher. Thus there is a certain depth below which CaCO3 is always in solution, but depending on conditions, it can spontaneously come out of solution to precipitate. Now as of yet I haven't found the heat of solution for this reaction, but since it does happen on a small scale (without boiling water etc.) I'd think the reaction energy may be low.
But there is another conclusion we can already draw. I'm not sure of the solubility of CaCO3 in water yet, but let's assume that it precipitates out in a ratio of 1 gram of limestone per kilogram of water. And let's assume that this does involve the full heat of formation energy release of 12.7kJ per gram. So we have 12700 Joules of heat (1 gram of CaCO3) per 1000 grams of water. The heat capacity of water is 4186J/kg = a temp increase of 12700J/(4186J/K) ~= 3K or 3C.
So if there was some kind of mass instant precipitation of lots of dissolved CaCO# in the ocean, say because of a temperature rise caused by undersea volcanic activity perhaps, then even an instantaneous precipitation of 1 gram of CaCO# for every kilogram of water - assuming the full heat of formation of 1207kJ/mol (which isn't applicable anyway) we'd still only have a temperature rise of about 3 degrees centigrade. That wouldn't be a problem.
@tubewatch59 Divide by the solar constant (1.96 cal/sq cm/minute or approximately 1 billion calories per year per square meter), you find that to deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 1171 times that received by the sun. and this is just one formation out of many. Evaporites, anhydrites, desert pavements, and caliches buried all over the world testify to the fact there was no global flood.
Well, I'm not exactly sure what your objection is though. You're saying I think, that if the CaCO3 were to ever have precipitated in a large bed (all at once say, or even over a less than one year period (or even in say a few minutes or an hour)), then the energy released (the heat) would have been too great to ever have happened. In other words - the heat released by such an event would have heated the large CaCO3 bed to an impossibly high temperature. Is that right?
@tubewatch59 Actually it's the energy required to create such an amount of carbonate in the first place, as it's a combination reaction. And the whole exercise here is that this is supposed to have been deposited over the length of the "Noachian Flood".
@tubewatch59 i call you a moron because you say moronic things. you continue to bring up bullshit conjecture and keep harping on the same discredited nonsense over and over... yes, this gets you labeled as an idiot. a delusional and dishonest one at that. lying for jebus is still lying.
I can take you an and win without calling you a liar. Of course you're not a liar. You really believe this nonsense you spout. That's delusion, not lying. What describes you more accurately is rudeness. But hey, I can live with that.
It's also reasonable to assume as well that the later flooding of the Black Sea during the Neolithic around 8 to 7 kya is also a basis for the Great Flood story. The Mediterranean Sea broke through the Bosporous mountians in Turkey flushing salty sea water into the once freshwater Black "lake" this allowed a huge catastrophic wall of seawater to break through the mountian barrier flooding everything in site creating the Black Sea today so the Great Flood story might have some truth to it.
The Great Flood is probably based on the rising ocean sea levels that occurred during the end of the Last Ice Age. The world's sea level rose 400 feet all over the world most of the earth's coastal geography is the result of this flooding. Evidence can be found in the sinking of Berengia the landbridge that connected Asia to the Americas, Sundaland that connected Indonesia to S.E Asia mainland,the Sahul shelf that connected New Guinea to Australia etc...
Ancient people living in river valley's have flood myths. It would be strange if they did not. Remember when there is water from one horizon to the other, as far as an ancient people are concerned the THEIR WHOLE WORLD is flooded not The Whole World is Flooded. The Biblical account was most likely borrowed from the Babylonian myth which reseeded the biblical. Basically you grab the best breeding pairs some seed and hang on. Overtime the boat got bigger.
A flood to wipe out all life?? Not a very good way to go about it God,... what about all those fish that can swim?? Not to mention whales, dolphins, etc...
1:48 "What if modern science could prove it true?"
Modern Science has in fact proven that the Black sea was flooded just after the last Ice age... previous to that the entire basin contained a fresh water lake... the rising seawaters after the last ice age broke through the bosphorus and created the black sea...
So that's the FLOOD myth explained...
modern science.... including the laws of physics prohibit a world wide flood since the air pressure would cook everything alive!
If the black sea flood is - THE FLOOD - then are you saying that all humans lived around that area and then migrated all over the earth to tell their flood legends? No, I'm thinking you don't believe that.
What the Black sea flood does do is to support catastrophism in general. There have been quite a few large local floods. Catastrophism used to be shunned as ID is now. But the evidence for it became solid and now it is accepted science. (Not that being "accepted" is here or there).
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the southwestern corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture: cattle, goats, pigs and sheep. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.
@gregrutz - based on carbon dating and ice cores etc?
Carbon dating gets fouled up by a global flood because of all of the carbon bearing plant life buried and taken out of the environment fouling with the carbon equilibrium. This is going to give C14 dates that are tool old by in some cases tens of thousands of years.
Carbon dating is only good for 60,000 years, too short to date fossils. Other dating methods include: argon-argon (Ar-Ar) iodine-xenon (I-Xe) lanthanum-barium (La-Ba) lead-lead (Pb-Pb) lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf) neon-neon (Ne-Ne) rhenium-osmium (Re-Os) uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He) uranium-uranium (U-U)
What did I say about C14? I can't remember. Was it that I said they ought to test dinosaur bones with it? Well of course they should. You're assuming that they're 65 or 70 million years old. But there's a way to back up that claim. I mean after all, we're talking about pretty darn fresh looking partly unfossilized bones that contain protein remnants. So are they that old? See how much C14 is in there! Be surprised at the result. You're pre-assuming the conclusion.
I love Bobsmeerfak xd
MrWaddefak 1 month ago
The Grand Canyon is proof of Noah's flood. In 2011 there was an earthquake in Japan that changed entire landscapes and created a salt lake where there never was on in just hours not millions and billions of years.
isabelle2436 3 months ago
@isabelle2436
No, the Grand Canyon is not proof of Noah's Flood. See? Unless you have facts to bring to the table, it's easy to refute claims.
D34dH053 2 months ago
Its not a "World Flood" or a "Deluge" it was a Localized Mesopotamian Flood, in Genesis, Edan was around the Euphrates[Mesopotamia], Noah landed his ark on Mount Ararat [Northern Mesopotamia], thus a LOCAL FLOOD and proves its a Recycled Myth, it was berosus [3rd Cent BC Hellenistic Scholar] whom first Translated the Babylonian/Sumer Flood Accounts into GREEK [Same language as Septuagint, Hebrew Originals are myth], this makes "Berosus" the progenitor author of Genesis.
thone2008 3 months ago
CITIES MORE THAN 2THOUSAND YRS AGO HAVE BEEN FOUND IN ISRAEL, PALESTINE ETC. CITIES THAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT. GIANT SKULLS HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND. EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS REAL BECAUSE THERE IS EVIDENCE.
isabelle2436 4 months ago
@isabelle2436 There are no giant skulls, those were false images created by devilish people to play a prank on believers.
DrSanjayRape 3 months ago
So are dino's also a lie?! Is it a prank and false images? What about the videos of giants talking in an interview? is that fake?
isabelle2436 3 months ago
ok, how Noah legend disprove evolution? It says it happened about 5000yrs ago, but living creatures have been kept evolving by million years. Then the Bible is a collection of stories from the middle-east areas, can it implies that whenever they were thinking about "a fload that took all the world" was just referring to that specific area? And is talking about "all the animals" can be only be referred to the domesticated ones?
casalingalcolizzata 5 months ago
If it wasn't for Hayk, I wouldn't be here. He came down from Ararats Lerr, and founded my earliest ancestry. He's my G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.G.Great Grandfather x 20 !
Աստված օրհնի Հայաստան!
AIKevorkian 6 months ago
forgot all the dinosaurs but remembered every single microbe. brilliant.
ByWayOfDeception 6 months ago
why people even search for this if we already know it never happened?
4FunPlayin 7 months ago
@4FunPlayin: If you think it never happened, you have never seen the evidence.
MinisterQuietBuck 6 months ago
@MinisterQuietBuck Where's the worldwide layer of mud? The jumbles of human, animal, and structural remains in the same strata? Where did all of that excess water go? Why does every civilization and religious belief in that area before Christianity have the exact same story with different names?
GoGojiraGo 5 months ago
@GoGojiraGo: Explain petrified trees through multiple layers. Explain bones grouped as flood pools would do. Humans, study and you'll find they are the water laid rock layer. Water, study, for it went back into the ground as well as became the oceans we see today. Yes, flood story is all over, for those who escaped it (Noah's family) is who told the story. Christianity is bogus, scripture tells us this, Isaiah 45:20-21. Christians are the heathens Messiah often mentions.
MinisterQuietBuck 5 months ago
@MinisterQuietBuck ...... none of that made any sense.
GoGojiraGo 5 months ago
@MinisterQuietBuck what would be that evidence?
eleminatus 4 months ago
@eleminatus: Go do the studies. I can sit here all day and tell you but you won't understand nor believe till you do the work yourself. As a one time atheist, I had to do the studies myself to understand.
MinisterQuietBuck 4 months ago
@MinisterQuietBuck well aint that something! So you claim that there are evidence, but instead of just giving a couple of papers or research points, you tell me to go and do the research myself! There goes your credibility. And on the side note - I already studied it. I know the impossibility of the Noahs flood. So you can whether attempt to have a decent debate and provide at least points of reference to your evidence, or join the ranks of lunatics!
eleminatus 4 months ago
@eleminatus: I am not here to spoon feed you, which clearly you desire. If you cannot open up Google and do your own research. Then there is no hope for you. Go about life believing what everyone tells you instead of looking anything up for yourself. Fact you resort to name calling proves you have done no research but cling to the parroting of others. For a person w/ facts has no need to resort to name calling.
MinisterQuietBuck 4 months ago
@MinisterQuietBuck I havent done any name calling. Yet! You see, for a person who talks big, you most certainly dont put those words to actions. You claim to have evidence yet you tell me to go find them myself. Its fallacious on the very basic level. If you truly had them it would not be a big deal to give a couple of references. I would also suggest you get off that very high horse of yours. Just assuming you are right does not mean you are!
eleminatus 4 months ago
@MinisterQuietBuck let me make it easier for you by addressing point by point: where did all the water come from?
eleminatus 4 months ago
@MinisterQuietBuck
>"I am not here to spoon feed you, which clearly you desire. If you cannot open up Google and do your own research."
Ahhhh, yes....the old "Point at everything in existence and proclaim 'The Evidence is somewhere in THAT direction'."
Just because you can Google something doesn't make it true. I can Google items about Muslims 'proving' Jesus didn't die on the cross; I can Google items about us all being clone by spacemen.
Are these items as 'reliable' as your 'evidence'?
LordCustos3 4 months ago
@LordCustos3: I am so sorry for not being exactly specific for this digital generation. Use Google, go to a library, check out books, get scripture from other countries, study flood documents from multiple countries, etc. Sadly I did not assume I had to be so specific when one does studies.
Pro 25:17 Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour's house; lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee.
MinisterQuietBuck 4 months ago
@MinisterQuietBuck
I have done all these things. This is why I don't believe the fable of Noah's Ark.
Not only is the story ridiculous and impossible....it paints Yahweh as a petulant child breaking all his own toys in a tantrum as punishment for his own mistakes. (Though that applies to the entire OT as well.)
From the Principia Discordia:
Dear God; This is to inform you that your current position as deity is herewith terminated due to gross incompetence.
See, I can quote scripture too.
LordCustos3 4 months ago
did they bring CRABS std on the boat?
Cizza225 7 months ago
Spock, i am dissappoint.
thelighteningbolt519 7 months ago
0:14 Scepticism ? Why should such a story even be assumed to have the slightest amount of truth in it?
ByabyaChannel 7 months ago
Uhm... btw, impressive how Noah went to Australia and Arctica to pick up those kangaroos and Icebears...
ydyammo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now all we need is some evidence for a global flood !!! Any evidence at all.
gregrutz 8 months ago
6:10....`Russian - Turkish Border` ..... `Surrounded by Top Secret Missile sites`..Wtf??? Only a brainless can believe these.And i was seriously watching this video.
halfmumi 9 months ago
There have been many floods in history, true. However, every race of man from Asia to South America can point to some sort of universal flood legend dating back ten thousand years or so passing thru their forefathers. Where did it come from? Archaelogists have already proven thru escavations of Mesopotamia of a very severe flood which occured in the region about that time. Noone has all the answers so people should shut up before discounting any talk (which is always easy to do,isn't it?)
tbudzol 10 months ago
@tbudzol The bible says there was a flood 4400 years ago, there are trees older than that. There never was a global flood that killed all but 6 people.
gregrutz 8 months ago
And that is your mistake in life. .You apparently believe that God should allow only good things to happen on earth and interfere with the decisions of man....man who was given freedom of choice by God. Did it ever occur to you that life on earth is just one big test? Who told you everything here is supposed to be paradise?
tbudzol 10 months ago
@houseofhorus The "theory" is NOT full of holes. If you're getting your facts from creationists, your facts are wrong.
As for flooding - there IS evidence of localized flooding in one area or another at various points in the earth's history. But there is NO evidence - not one single solitary piece, whether it be geological, biological, meteorological, paleontological or otherwise - to suggest that there was ever a catastrophic world-wide flood.
There isn't. There simply is *not*.
jjobie 10 months ago
@jjobie
Ahhh.....thanks. A voice of reason. All us "skeptics" ask for is definitive proof. That's all. So easy for the misinformed to take ramblings or bullshit spread by other uninformed, and we have a mad cycle of baloney.
Check my comments to some guy on the "In Search of...Bermuda Triangle" in regards to his claim on Sonar?Radar not working there.
cuttock 10 months ago
@houseofhorus There is plenty of doubt we have evolved, but atheists&evolutionists don't want you to know this.See my channel and esp. the creation science playlists. The Genesis Conflict one by Dr. Veith is one of the best ones to start with. He's a former hardcore atheist with a Ph.D. in zoology who became creationist due to the weight of evidence. As to the flood, there's tons of evidence for this&many confirmations of it. I have a playlist on that (creation--the evidence for the flood).
TruthIsLife7 10 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Yes, there is plenty of "doubt" about evolution - among the fringe. There is hardly "plenty of evidence" for creationism.
Not trying to sound like a jerk, but I hear this repeated over and over and over again by creationists, and it is simply untrue. The only 'debate' about evolution is the one among creationists and "IDers."
There is no "creation/evolution debate" among mainstream (read: non-fringe) science. in scientific circles, The debate was settled a long time ago.
jjobie 10 months ago
Great floods occured worldwide at the end of the Ice Age. Every culture and people has a story of a flood being sent by the Gods as punishment.
The Hebrew bible doesn't say "it landed on Mt Ararat." It says "landed on a hill in Ararat."
Ararat is the old name for Armenia. It consists of a plain full of gullies, walled in by mountains.
MondoBeno 10 months ago
Did he say there was evidence of a flood? Only in the bible and quran
gregrutz 11 months ago
Everyone always looks so greasy in the seventies and early eighties.
BossBass7o7 1 year ago
i don't see why the story noah's ark & the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive
lukafafrenz 1 year ago
@lukafafrenz One says we evolved, one says we all came off a boat.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz obviously -- but why couldn't we have done both? -- other hominids didn't build boats -- only homo sapiens did (& still do) -- neither explanation claims to have occurred over the same time frame
lukafafrenz 11 months ago
@lukafafrenz Because you can't get all the animals on a boat, there is no geologic evidence of a flood.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz because "you can't get all the animals on a boat" is the reason why evolution and the story of noah's ark are mutually exclusive? that's why the theory of earlier hominids cannot coexist with a tale of "modern man"? is english your first language?
lukafafrenz 11 months ago
@lukafafrenz Let me explain, I will type slow so you get it.
1. Evolution is a fact. You are a Great Ape.
2. 'the flood' is a myth. No evidence, impossible.
Understand ?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz no, you are slow, but one types slowLY(it's called an adverb) - science(which i'm surprised you believe you know something about, given that you cannot make, or follow a logical argument)grants the status of "law" only once "hypothesis", then "theory" have been satisfied - maybe once you look these terms up, you'll comprehend that only scientific laws are proven - there is evidence for both evolution & the flood, but neither is proved -- & none suggest that they share the same period
lukafafrenz 10 months ago
@lukafafrenz No, theories don't grow up to become laws. Laws and 'proofs' only apply to math.
Geologists went looking for flood evidence 200 years ago. They didn't find any.
Floods don't make distinct layer or different kinds of rocks. Floods don't sort fossils.
Evolution has been accepted as happening because of all the evidence. What evidence do you have for a flood. Tell us there are shells on mountains please.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz us? you seem to be the only one dense enough not to understand my original statement--i've no desire to repeat myself(this will be my last reply)--hypotheses can fail & theories can be modified, but if a scientific law does either, then every conclusion based upon it fails(google can be your friend)--albert einstein once said;"imagination is more important than knowledge"--you seriously lack both--i've enough of both to appreciate that the concepts of evolution & the flood can coexist
lukafafrenz 10 months ago
@lukafafrenz that is nice, but there was no flood. No evidence to support it and tons of evidence to prove it wrong.
A Law is a fact that science has discovered. The law of gravity is F=G[m1+m2]/2. MATH ! The Theory of Relitivity is the latest theory to explain it.
gregrutz 10 months ago
Leonard must have been hard up for work when he did this shite . Maybe in his 'Spock rejection' years
wearefused 1 year ago
@wearefused - not really, it was a logical decision based on the overwhelming evidence for the flood.
DebateRobo 1 year ago
@DebateRobo '' overwhelming evidence for the flood. ''
that's funny. Geology not only does not support the flood, it proves there never was one.
In nature we find distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order, floods don't do that.
All sedimentry rock is not water born. Floods don't sort fossils.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz - why do you say that? How do you explain the layers of fossils?
DebateRobo 11 months ago
@DebateRobo Evolution explains why we see primitive fossils below complex animal and plant fossils. There is no flood mud layer with all the fossils mixed together. The Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon is wind blown sand from a desert, it is between layers of limestone.
Explain all the layers in the Grand Canyon. And why the dinosaurs walked half way up the hill. LOL
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz - Several evolutionists did lab studies on the arc of the wave shapes in the coconino sandstone and concluded that it looked similar to ocean sand movement. Also, name something that is primitive. and unique in terms of fossils. Also, the footprints le
DebateRobo 11 months ago
@DebateRobo You forgot about the fossils. The Coconino has desert animal and plant fossils in it.
Did the flood lay down all the 5000 feet of sediments and cut the canyon too?
Trilobites, dinosaurs with feathers, all the Cambrian marine creatures, all extinct, none of their fossils intermixed with bunny fossils.
gregrutz 11 months ago
7:16
"A piece of Noah's ark would be the greatest archaeological find of all time, and would discredit the theory of evolution."
So, these archaeologists had a hidden agenda...
MichaelVoz 1 year ago
Watch youtube.com/watch?v=Q-LELWT0Y5A&feature=related
for some cool info about Noah and Adam you won't hear in church
83crankdat 1 year ago
actually the flood proof is all around us and is so simple to see that only those who serve the AntiChrist and those who are just stupid will miss the facts.Like sponges fosselson the rim of the Grand canyan whale skelletons 12 miles high in mountans so so many its unargurable the flood happen.Unless you are willingly ignorant
OutlawzSBT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Search Of-Idiots who believe in this crap!!!
METALIZE1 1 year ago
@METALIZE1 Spok speaks only logical truth... and this is more than logic. So shut up and leave us alone.
ElenaBlackRose 1 year ago
Hey tubewatcher and leonardschool!!!,I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone,BUT DO IT P.M.!!! You two have takin up 5 pages,maybe more havent looked.
TheDeadhead76 1 year ago
I do believe there was a flood and I do believe that an ark was built, however I dont think it was a global flood like the bible says, more like a localized flood.
fordxbgtfalcon 1 year ago
@fordxbgtfalcon Your beliefs are screwed up. No ark needs to be built because of a local flood. The people simply walk away. A local flood would fail to destroy most of mankind and thus doesn't make sense to even be mentioned in the Bible. Fact is, a global flood that killed most humans and animals is remembered by cultures on all inhabited continents, and so that proves it was global enough to affect all continents / cultures. Even this documentary mentions that, but you seem to ignore it.
Elhardt 1 year ago
The Flood did happen. Know it!
VIKING33NY 1 year ago
@VIKING33NY Right Vike. Now all you have to do is prove it. Silly Rabbit, science is not for kids.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman look it up on youtube...I do have an education little man. I think your parents should limit your time on the web. Hey, get a snack and off to bed with you little guy. Sweet dreams!!
VIKING33NY 1 year ago
@VIKING33NY HAHAHAHAH. YouTube! And education from clown college perhaps! Tell you what, obvious troll, get published. And then we'll talk. Cause I'd just love to dump the entire weight of the Opeche right on your empty little head. 'Cause really, it's about the salt, and heat.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman it must be nice to run around in a head of an 8yr old child with such uncluttered thoughts...lol GO NURSE WITH MOMMY little man.
VIKING33NY 1 year ago
@VIKING33NY Yep. A troll. I'm going to gather some notes and show you how this is done. If I require any further lip from you, I'll take it from your father's zipper. So, let's get started: The Opeche Shale is a formation that extends from the Dakotas down to Texas. In the middle of this formation is a deposit of salt: 91 meters thick.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman I love the fact that you're trying to PROVE to me that you're smart...lol It's so funny. Stop cutting and pasting someones work. I know you're an idiot..ok? Relax you mental midget. I'm not going to quiz you on stuff that way over your head..lol You are funny and if you were here, I'd slap your ears to the other side of your head...Caio!
VIKING33NY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VIKING33NY The configuration that this basin takes is very similar to the playas and evaporative basins seen today. Also, this salt deposit contains no pollen from modern sources. All comes from Permian plants. Now the area of salt deposition is 188,400 sq km. Dividing by 2 to get the average thickness of about 45 meters. This equals about 9 trillion cu meters of NaCl (continued)
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VIKING33NY The density of salt is 2160 kg/cu meter, so this represents the evaporation of 540,000 cu km of seawater. To evaporate this much sea water and leave the salt requires 10^24 joules of heat energy. That's more than twice enough to raise the temp of the Earth's atmosphere to 100 deg C. Ergo, Noah would've been cooked and all life extinguished. Further, there is 3100 feet of salt under Detroit. Again, too much heat. (continued)
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@VIKING33NY Of course, none of this matters with out data to back it up: Wilgus, Cheryl K. and William T. Holser, 1984. "Marine and Nonmarine Salts of Western Interior, United States," AAPG Bulletin. p. 765-766, and for the chemistry info, feel free to refer to any college chemistry text. It'll have all the table for heat of formation and evaporative processes. And this is just one evaporite deposit we've examined. There are hundreds!
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman OK, we understand that you don't believe, get over yourself and stop commenting on this video.
HolyRevelation 1 year ago
@HolyRevelation Uh, no. As long as people prefer ignorance over education I will not be silenced nor dissuaded. If these clearly fallacious bronze age myths continue to be taken as literal fact, I'll fight them to my last breath. The future of humanity depends on people who can and do think clearly. People who regard Genesis as fact clearly do not.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
Comment removed
HolyRevelation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorthForkFisherman If you think it's your JOB to make everyone on youtube, believe everything you believe, you're foolish. As long as we all stay respectful, it's OK to disagree.
I'm not silencing anyone, if you wish to debate someone, be like respectful people and send them a personal message.
HolyRevelation 1 year ago 2
@HolyRevelation When people are respectful, they do recieve it in return. Those that are obvious trolls, I deal with them as they deserve. And I'm not so grandiose in my vision to think that I'm going to change the entire world. I just want to open one mind. And the way to do it is to put right here in this public forum where everyone can see the data and ask about it. This is supposed to be an educational channel here. So the more, the merrier. As long as they stay on subject, I'm good.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago 2
@NorthForkFisherman is that when they found the diamond in your ass? lol
You speak like a wannbe smart person with NO education...Silly Rabbit, dicks are for chicks!!
VIKING33NY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VIKING33NY Nice try douchebag. Get published and then maybe I'll have some more time for you. And I have proven you wrong. You just don't have enough of a frontal lobe to see it. So here's what I'm going to do for you. Until you can bring your "A game", you'll be ignored. Not blocked, because you're simply not worth the time, but simply ignored. Bring some data next time child, cause I'll just rip it apart otherwise.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VIKING33NY Then when you start looking at the number of other points in support of this (carbonates and heat of formation, total biomass of carbon found, meteoric impacts, etc) you see that not only did a Noachian Flood not happen, it shows that it couldn't have happened. So, game, set , and match. Nothing like a little full-frontal science to serve up nice side of troll. Next time you come to an intellectual gunfight, don't bring a butterknife. I've enjoyed our little chat. At your expense.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
somebodys angry! hahaha
wilhelm1974 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wilhelm1974 "somebodys angry! hahaha"
not by a LONG shot hahahahhahahaha
Dont confuse my pity for astounding ignorance and a pathetic failure of his public school system for anger. I'm as cool as the other side of the pillow.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
I'll tell you one thing for sure. You're not as cool as I am. You've been throwing "insults of mass debunktion" ever since you came on here. I've been getting the little jibe in here and there too. But that's not science. You're depending on insults to try and scare away your detractors. You imagine you can get away with it, since you're in the majority. You don't see, that by doing that, you lose your "majority status" to those who can spot the B.S.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 "You're not as cool as I am"
i'm far cooler than you could ever be my little delusional friend
"You've been throwing "insults of mass debunktion""
no, i've been calling a spade a spade. you've been insulting yourself. calling you and idiot, just after you've said something idiotic, is pointing out the obvious
"I've been getting the little jibe in here and there too"
but you havent
"you're in the majority"
you stupid fuck. US is almost 77% christian, atheists make up 2.3% of pop.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
Did Noah carry his map with him also to know that he landed on Mt. Ararat after floating around for over a month??
robb21572 1 year ago
@robb21572
God pushed the "reset button" on all of mapping - after THAT flood!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@robb21572 what's even more remarkable is that he ended up not far from where he started, despite the mother of all storms raging outside!
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond Yea totally! I even wondered how he captured all the flies and ants and kept them from starving to death. The more questions one asks, the more rediculous the whole scenario becomes!! I think the story has been taken too literal for long enough!
robb21572 1 year ago
@robb21572
Did you realize that the Ark's dimensions are optimal for a barge on the high seas? ow would Noah have figured out those dimensions? After all, the story of the Babylonians from which it is supposed to have originated gives the shape as a cube - which is ridiculous!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
"Did you realize that the Ark's dimensions are optimal for a barge on the high seas?"
BULLSHIT and i challenge you to provide for your claim, besides, the size makes the boat unseaworthy
"How would Noah have figured out those dimensions?"
he DIDNT! read your buy bull!
"the story of the Babylonians from which it is supposed to have originated gives the shape as a cube"
irrelevant. this is not the only thing the authors of the bible changed. doesn't mean it wasn't based on it either
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
No, really! The arks dimensions were found to be optimal by a South Korean team of Naval architects who did a study on the stability and seaworthiness of the ark, based on the notion that it was a wooden vessel, and based on the stated dimensions given in Genesis.
The paper is called:
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
And here is the abstract:
(1) In this study, the safety of Noah’s Ark in the severe environments imposed by waves and winds during the Genesis Flood was investigated. Three major safety parameters—structural safety, overturning stability, and seakeeping quality—were evaluated altogether to assess the safety of the whole system.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
(2) The concept of ‘relative safety’, which is defined as the relative superiority in safety compared to other hull forms, was introduced and 12 different hull forms with the same displacement were generated for this purpose. Evaluation of these three safety parameters was performed using analytical tools. Model tests using 1/50 scaled models of a prototype were performed for three typical hull forms in order to validate the theoretical analysis.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
(3) Total safety index, defined as the weighted average of three relative safety performances, showed that the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres.
The whole paper is online. You can read it (even though you won't want to).
tubewatch59 1 year ago
"The whole paper is online. You can read it (even though you won't want to)"
Oh no, just the opposite in fact. i enjoyed the read. It's not quite as ludicrous as a virgin birth, global flood, talking snakes, and living in a whale for 3 days, but it's close! It also failed to give the credentials of the authors, it WASNT published in a credible science journal, the "work" wasn't peer reviewed before publication, and in fact was published in a CREATIONIST publication!
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
But you read it, and so? What did you think of the results?
The results saying - that the Ark strikes a balance between stability without being too stable (resulting in overly strong restoring forces that would have caused the passengers to be in a constant state of extreme discomfort. And strong enough despite being made of wood, to handle the environment.
Looks like the designer (God) was pretty "clued up" on the dimensions required. You can't just SAY it's invalid.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
"Wouldn't one have been written by now, if it could be?"
most likely people arent aware of it if it wasn't published in a credible science journal.
"Looks like the designer (God) was pretty "clued up"
this is a false dichotomy logical fallacy. EVEN IF the paper was legit, and EVEN IF it's possible to build an ark that big and EVEN IF they found an ark on/near ararat, that STILL wouldn't prove a global flood OR your god you moron! There's ZERO empirical evidence to support either one.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
We're not proving the global flood by the evidence that the ark was exceptiohnally well designed. We're just providing evidence to support that part of the account.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
you've provided ZERO evidence for a global flood, while i provided you with dozens of reasons why we know the flood could NOT have happened. Leave the ark out of it. There's no genetic bottleneck, the fossils don't support it, and follow a Darwinian progression. It's mind numbing that any adult can look at the evidence and not laugh out loud at the absurdity of it all. It's by far the stupidest fairy tale in all of fiction and takes truly brainwashed unthinking uneducated and gullible to believe
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
The Darwinian progression - sea life to fish to amphibians, to reptiles to birds and mammals, is only Darwinian because the order of evolution was based on the general order that the fossils were found in. But this "Darwinian order" is also the order of burial of rising flood waters. Hmmm? Funny that!
Maybe all of life actually evolved in 40 days and 40 nights while the flood happenned! Then we're both right! We can be best buddies! Oh yeah. Can't wait for that!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 " is only Darwinian because the order of evolution was based on the general order that the fossils were found in"
No, it's called Darwinian Progression because it shows the simpler life forms at the bottom, with more complex ones at top. Exactly as evolution predicts
"is also the order of burial of rising flood waters. Hmmm? Funny that!"
You're a fucking loon! You don't think a single dinosaur could outrun any other mammals?! Not a one made high ground with the elephants?
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
Actually (and you know this already - you just haven't thought it through yet) there is no progression from simple life to complex life.
All life has the same conserved core processes. Other than an assertion that it must be so, there is absolutely no evidence that life "back then" was simpler than life is now. It's simply a matter of habitat and the creatures that survive there.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"there is no progression from simple life to complex life"
ignorant lie. the evidence is in the textbooks, look at the videos of donexodus2 and aronra. both have SEVERAL videos highlighting this evidence
"there is absolutely no evidence that life "back then" was simpler than life is now"
jaw dropping ignorance. you clearly haven't studied the fossil record. the entirety of it contradicts what you just said.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
And you haven't studied the genetic makeup of the animals in the fossil record either.
So where is the evidence that life was simpler back then? There isn't any, only evolutionist guesses and deductions that - since life must have come from a simple begining, then early life MUST have been simpler than it is now.
Opinion! If our roles were reversed, I'd be calling you a liar by now, but they're not, and I haven't. You've made it clear you really believe this stuff!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
All we're seeing is that man and other animals didn't live where the dinosaurs did. That figures. Animals have various territories. But, I'd think that (like I said earlier) one day, a "bunny" may just show up along with the dinosaurs. Hey, they're already showing up around "55 million years old" (your time) so there isn't too much to go before they'll be rabbit fossils contemporary with the dinosaurs. They'll never be precambrian, because they're land animals.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
"All we're seeing is that man and other animals didn't live where the dinosaurs did"
wow you're a nut. not a single one ever killed man? not a single tool designed to hunt dinosaurs has ever been found. not a single footprint in the same strata, not a single bone even
"so there isn't too much to go before they'll be rabbit fossils contemporary with the dinosaurs"
i'll bet any amount of money you're wrong. the statement is so idiotic, i'm beginning to think you're a troll instead of stupid
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
There have been footprints with dinosaurs, but that evidence HAD to be discounted at any cost. See, you're mantra's only are effective when propped up by ignorance. But there was evidence of disnosaur and human footprints together. But that cannot exist in the evolutionists world, so we have a situation where you're kind of hoping the public will be either too scared to defend evidence that gets rubbished, or else (even better) they don't even know about such evidences.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
Hey! According to YOUR people, rabbits extend all the way back to 55 million years ago. What's so dramatic about them being found just a teensy weensy 10 million years earlier still. And if that happenned, you wouldn't even bat an eyelid.
In fact you didn't even bat an eyelid when Tiktaalic was shown to be an evolutionary irrelevancy after those pre-existing animal tracks were found that (in your scheme of dating) pre-dated Tiktaalic (R.I.P.) by 19 million years.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
You fucking unthinking moron. what? you're going to argue plants ran up the mountains now too? we see primitive plants buried in pre-cambrian sediments. why didnt any pterodons make it to high ground? how are footprints also sorted? (how are there footprints and raindrops burred to begin with?) if there was overcrowding before the flood, why no human remains on mountaintops? why are human ARTIFACTS ONLY buried on uppermost strata? did they climb mountains too? you're either stupid, or dishonest.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
The plants are merely different. There's no evidence they're primitive. More dogma.
But you're not an unthinking moron, you are "Spartacus"! :-< Nahh, actually you're more like Marcus Licinius Crassus. :-)
Why? Because the animals closer to the coasts got overwhelmed and buried in the initial Tsunami's. Man wouldn't have lived with Dinosaurs. And anything (including dinosaurs) that survived the initial entombments, would have rotted away during the flood...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
"Maybe all of life actually evolved in 40 days and 40 nights while the flood happenned! "
...and maybe Flying Spaghetti Monster reached out with his noodly appendage, and created a magic, 10K headed purple monkey to magically re-sort the fossils after your non-existent flood, to only make it appear life evolved? you're not the only one who can imagine ludicrous things with no supporting evidence. why not show evidence for a flood before imagining what might have happened afterwards?
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 "You can't just SAY it's invalid." Actually I can. There was no ark because there was no global flood. The geology simply does not support such an assumption and this can demonstrated by the careful examination of just one formation, it's chemical constituents, and heat of formation. Carbonates and the processes that make them. Or we could look at palyonogical data and see the same thing.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
Unlike "some" people around here (yes, I'm referring to LeonardSecond - who carry on his arguments with 95% insults, 5% objections) you're reference to geology is more interesting.
So whats this problem about limestone you're referring to, in more detail?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 The mass of limestone and it's corresponding mineral makeup and the process by which these minerals form (and other lines of evidence) give a direct indication that one, not only was there not a global flood, and two, while a great portion sedimentary rocks formed from offshore deposition, the amount of time requires was much longer that the flood year. This will take some time to cover and will have references posted for your followup.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
OK, I'll be interested to read your main points. You're talking perhaps about the idea that limestone is formed in corals and as the result of various skeletons and shells of small sea creatures, which would require rather larger amounts of time than the flood year would allow?
I'm also interesed in what you had previously mentioned as the energy of formation of limestone (or something along those lines).
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Well, that is part of it, but the main gist is that it's the chemical composition of carbonates themselves thats the key point here. Consider: 1,300 feet of Ordovician limestone and dolomite, the Red River, Stony Mountain and Stonewall Formations, collectively known as the Bighorn Dolomite. (Data from W. H. Hunt Trust Larson #1 well, Mckenzie Co., North Dakota.) These cannot be flood deposits simply for reasons of heat production in their formation.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Formation of carbonate rock liberates about 1,207 kilocalories per mole ("General Chemistry" Wittier et al, 1992, p. 576). A column 400 meters high with a cross section area of 1 square meter would include 400 million cc of carbonate. Since the density of the carbonate is around 2.5 g/cc this means that there are 10 million moles of carbonate deposited over each square meter. Multiply this by 1,207,000 calories per mole to get the amount of energy required per square meter.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
I found out interestingly, that 1 mole of CaCO3 is just about on 100 grams (which is a nice neat figure). So we can talk about the heat released as 1207000 calories per mole ( = calories per 100 grams) so the calories per gram would work out to be 1207000/100 = 12070 calories per gram ~= 12.1kCal/gram = 4.1858 x 12.1 kJ/gram ~= 50.65kJ/gram.
So the heat released by the precipitation of each gram of CaCO3 = 50.65kJ.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 So far we seem to be in agreement. I think I might have missed saying that yes this is an exothermic reaction. Please continue.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
Sure. So you're saying that in order for each gram of CaCO3 to form, then about 51kJ of heat would be released, and given that the specific heat of CaCO3 is ~=0.84 kJ / kg / K = 0.84 J/(gram.K), then in other words, to form reach gram of CaCO3 requires the heating of each said gram to a temperature above ambient of around 51000/0.84 ~= 60700 degrees Kelvin!!! Which is a tad too hot. Hmmm!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
There's one thing I'd like to get cler though. You mentioned originally that the heat of formation of CaCO3 per mole (100g) was ~= 1,207 kilocalories per mole ("General Chemistry" Wittier et al, 1992, p. 576).
Can you quote me that equation? (I don't have access to that book.)
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Actually, I can do one better. NIST webook. Link is on your page in the comments block. I'd respond more quickly, but I'm at work. And starting to get busy. But please continue.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
That NIST webbook is tricky (unless I suppose for those who know how to use it). But I did find that value in my SI chemical data book. It's actually not 1207 kCal/mol but 1207 kJ/mol but not too worry. It's all much of a muchness in the sense that my "temperature per gram" estimate would now be around 60700K/4.1858 = 14500K which is still rather more than a tad too hot!! OUCH!
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
But wait. Because I think this is fairly relevant. In the SI chemical data book it says that the heat of formation value is: "the standard enthalpy of formation at 25 C (298 K) for 1 mole of the substance in the state specified from it's elements in their standard states (stable forms at 1 atm (101.3 kPa) pressure and 25 C).
It's relevant because we're talking about a process which basically burns calcium metal with oxygen gas, then combines that with CO2 gas...
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
So while there would indeed be a lot of energy liberated by burning millions of tonnes of calcium metal and combing that with millions of more tonnes of oxygen gas and CO2 gas, I don't believe that kind of a chemical reaction is what we'd have been dealing with in the flood.
That would be like saying that the salt in the ocean must have been formed slowly because the heat given off by burning sodium metal with chlorine gas would have been too great in a single event.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
I'd be thinking instead that we'd be dealing with chemicals already in aqueous solution that precipitated to form carbonate deposits.
Now, would you agree with that? I may still be wrong about the whole idea of limestone being formed suddenly, but do you see the point I'm making about this particular argument? I'm saying we can't apply the enthaply of formation of CaCO3 as it's not applicable in this case. Rather, something more like the heat of precipitation. Yes?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
From what I've read, it seems that CaCO3 can be dissolved in sea water - more so if the water is colder and the pressure is higher. Thus there is a certain depth below which CaCO3 is always in solution, but depending on conditions, it can spontaneously come out of solution to precipitate. Now as of yet I haven't found the heat of solution for this reaction, but since it does happen on a small scale (without boiling water etc.) I'd think the reaction energy may be low.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
But there is another conclusion we can already draw. I'm not sure of the solubility of CaCO3 in water yet, but let's assume that it precipitates out in a ratio of 1 gram of limestone per kilogram of water. And let's assume that this does involve the full heat of formation energy release of 12.7kJ per gram. So we have 12700 Joules of heat (1 gram of CaCO3) per 1000 grams of water. The heat capacity of water is 4186J/kg = a temp increase of 12700J/(4186J/K) ~= 3K or 3C.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
So if there was some kind of mass instant precipitation of lots of dissolved CaCO# in the ocean, say because of a temperature rise caused by undersea volcanic activity perhaps, then even an instantaneous precipitation of 1 gram of CaCO# for every kilogram of water - assuming the full heat of formation of 1207kJ/mol (which isn't applicable anyway) we'd still only have a temperature rise of about 3 degrees centigrade. That wouldn't be a problem.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Divide by the solar constant (1.96 cal/sq cm/minute or approximately 1 billion calories per year per square meter), you find that to deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 1171 times that received by the sun. and this is just one formation out of many. Evaporites, anhydrites, desert pavements, and caliches buried all over the world testify to the fact there was no global flood.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
Well, I'm not exactly sure what your objection is though. You're saying I think, that if the CaCO3 were to ever have precipitated in a large bed (all at once say, or even over a less than one year period (or even in say a few minutes or an hour)), then the energy released (the heat) would have been too great to ever have happened. In other words - the heat released by such an event would have heated the large CaCO3 bed to an impossibly high temperature. Is that right?
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 Actually it's the energy required to create such an amount of carbonate in the first place, as it's a combination reaction. And the whole exercise here is that this is supposed to have been deposited over the length of the "Noachian Flood".
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 i call you a moron because you say moronic things. you continue to bring up bullshit conjecture and keep harping on the same discredited nonsense over and over... yes, this gets you labeled as an idiot. a delusional and dishonest one at that. lying for jebus is still lying.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
I can take you an and win without calling you a liar. Of course you're not a liar. You really believe this nonsense you spout. That's delusion, not lying. What describes you more accurately is rudeness. But hey, I can live with that.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
It's also reasonable to assume as well that the later flooding of the Black Sea during the Neolithic around 8 to 7 kya is also a basis for the Great Flood story. The Mediterranean Sea broke through the Bosporous mountians in Turkey flushing salty sea water into the once freshwater Black "lake" this allowed a huge catastrophic wall of seawater to break through the mountian barrier flooding everything in site creating the Black Sea today so the Great Flood story might have some truth to it.
Millineum3000 1 year ago
The Great Flood is probably based on the rising ocean sea levels that occurred during the end of the Last Ice Age. The world's sea level rose 400 feet all over the world most of the earth's coastal geography is the result of this flooding. Evidence can be found in the sinking of Berengia the landbridge that connected Asia to the Americas, Sundaland that connected Indonesia to S.E Asia mainland,the Sahul shelf that connected New Guinea to Australia etc...
Millineum3000 1 year ago
I can't believe people still believe this story to be fact. Fucking retards!
fuckcalgarysucks 1 year ago
@fuckcalgarysucks
KING KONG AINT GOT SHIT ON ME
HaligonianType1 1 year ago
@HaligonianType1 What the fuck are you talking about?
fuckcalgarysucks 1 year ago
the narrator/host is the great Leonard Nimoy. thanx for posting,no matter which side you`re on it makes you think
bobowayney 1 year ago
There are many flood stories.
Ancient people living in river valley's have flood myths. It would be strange if they did not. Remember when there is water from one horizon to the other, as far as an ancient people are concerned the THEIR WHOLE WORLD is flooded not The Whole World is Flooded. The Biblical account was most likely borrowed from the Babylonian myth which reseeded the biblical. Basically you grab the best breeding pairs some seed and hang on. Overtime the boat got bigger.
VideoAudioDisco09 1 year ago
@CristinaFernandez... I know you can find ANYTHING on the internet, but it would SEEM there are "African" flood accounts...
I Googled "african flood myth" and found some stuff pretty quickly
MeInTheCornfield 1 year ago
and monkeys will fly out of my butt.enjoy your beliefs.but dont tell me to believe it
thanksforthemessdick 1 year ago
there are lots of african flood stories actually
thebokumarulab 1 year ago
If "the flood" happened worldwide, then why are there no flood stories in Africa?
CristinaFernandez 1 year ago
@CristinaFernandez ... I know you can find ANYTHING on the internet, but it would SEEM there are "African" flood accounts...
I Googled "african flood myth" and found some stuff pretty quickly
MeInTheCornfield 1 year ago
A flood to wipe out all life?? Not a very good way to go about it God,... what about all those fish that can swim?? Not to mention whales, dolphins, etc...
A nice story but just that, a story.
Sandor827 1 year ago
The narrator sounds like Tom Bosley.
MikeyMcCrashCap 1 year ago
1:48 "What if modern science could prove it true?"
Modern Science has in fact proven that the Black sea was flooded just after the last Ice age... previous to that the entire basin contained a fresh water lake... the rising seawaters after the last ice age broke through the bosphorus and created the black sea...
So that's the FLOOD myth explained...
modern science.... including the laws of physics prohibit a world wide flood since the air pressure would cook everything alive!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
If the black sea flood is - THE FLOOD - then are you saying that all humans lived around that area and then migrated all over the earth to tell their flood legends? No, I'm thinking you don't believe that.
What the Black sea flood does do is to support catastrophism in general. There have been quite a few large local floods. Catastrophism used to be shunned as ID is now. But the evidence for it became solid and now it is accepted science. (Not that being "accepted" is here or there).
tubewatch59 1 year ago
@tubewatch59
Nope, ALL humans did not live in or near the black sea...
In fact humans first colonized China before Europe or Turkey...
Its a story passed by the people who lived there an migrated losing their settlements to the Sumerians.
from there to Mesopotamia and from there to the Jews or isrealites... its a common story across all three civilizations..
The black sea supports a catastrophic flooding... the evidence is more than clear of that much! its pretty clear to be fair!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the southwestern corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture: cattle, goats, pigs and sheep. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz - based on carbon dating and ice cores etc?
Carbon dating gets fouled up by a global flood because of all of the carbon bearing plant life buried and taken out of the environment fouling with the carbon equilibrium. This is going to give C14 dates that are tool old by in some cases tens of thousands of years.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gregrutz 1 year ago
@tubewatch59 uhhhhhhhhhhhh C14 wouldn't be used on anything that old. educate yourself.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
What did I say about C14? I can't remember. Was it that I said they ought to test dinosaur bones with it? Well of course they should. You're assuming that they're 65 or 70 million years old. But there's a way to back up that claim. I mean after all, we're talking about pretty darn fresh looking partly unfossilized bones that contain protein remnants. So are they that old? See how much C14 is in there! Be surprised at the result. You're pre-assuming the conclusion.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
"Was it that I said they ought to test dinosaur bones with it?"
no, because if you did, i'd still be laughing at you
"Well of course they should"
wow that's fucking stupid. There's reasons it's not used on organic matter over 65K yrs old
"You're assuming that they're 65 or 70 million years old"
no, no assumptions come into play. it's called world wide scientific concensus. it trumps your "idiot fueled wild conjecture" EVERY time.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago