GG Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 There was a flood once that killed every living thing, except the lucky ones who hitched a ride with Noah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 There was a flood once that killed every living thing, except the lucky ones who hitched a ride with Noah. 475188[/snapback] Is that when the unicorns died? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 There was a flood once that killed every living thing, except the lucky ones who hitched a ride with Noah. 475188[/snapback] I covered that already. That's the flood from 7000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I covered that already. That's the flood from 7000 years ago. 475217[/snapback] If we're in year 5766, and the flood happened 1500 years after the creation of the world, how can that be 7000 years ago? Oops, I saw who I'm responding to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 If we're in year 5766, and the flood happened 1500 years after the creation of the world, how can that be 7000 years ago?Oops, I saw who I'm responding to... 475236[/snapback] Quit being a prick. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt5.html The Sumerian flood story predates the Hebrew flood tale by a thousand years and is closely mirrored by the story in Genesis. I would encourage anyone interested to look at this story in translation (eg Rosenburg 1988) and compare it to the Noah story in Genesis. More recently, evidence of a monumental flood into the Black Sea ca. 7000 years ago has been reported (Mestel 1997). Or this http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1970/JASA9-70Camping.html Hopefully, a perspective of history has been set forth that shows that answers are potentially forthcoming when we begin with the Biblical framework. The concept of a 13000 year old world, which began to be repopulated again after the flood some 7000 years ago, and which 1500 years later had grown to a point which allowed the spawning of the first great cities, surely makes much more sense than that of mankind being around for hundreds or even thousands of milleniums, and then becoming a cohesive city civilization only in the last 5500 years. Furthermore, the apparent possibility of the end of the age occurring in our time also accords far better with the shorter timetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Of course! Thousands of years ago, we rode dinosaurs and ate bronto burgers. Mmmmm... bronto-licious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Of course! Thousands of years ago, we rode dinosaurs and ate bronto burgers. Mmmmm... bronto-licious. 475288[/snapback] I hated when the carhop would set the rack of ribs on my window and the car would tip over. That really affected the tip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanes2005 Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Ironically, part of the problem is that not enough people have been dying in natural disasters. This lull over the last few hundred years has resulted in unsustainable buildup. To give one example, the earthquakes in the California fault zones have been relatively quiet over the last 50 years, and development has proceeded accordingly. But the plates havn't stopped moving - the energy continues to build, so that when it is released it will snap with much more force than it would if there were more regularly occuring 4.5's to release the tension. Same thing - an unusually quiet fault zone - is happening in the Northern India area, and (I think) Japan. And don't even ask about Yellowstone! 475035[/snapback] This is probably a dumb thing to suggest, but isn't western New York due for a Big earthquake? From what I have been told, Niagra Falls was created by an earthquake. Is this true? Is it possible for Western New York to be devastated by a catastrophic event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 This is probably a dumb thing to suggest, but isn't western New York due for a Big earthquake? From what I have been told, Niagra Falls was created by an earthquake. Is this true? Is it possible for Western New York to be devastated by a catastrophic event? 481279[/snapback] Yes, it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 This is probably a dumb thing to suggest, but isn't western New York due for a Big earthquake? From what I have been told, Niagra Falls was created by an earthquake. Is this true? Is it possible for Western New York to be devastated by a catastrophic event? 481279[/snapback] No, Niagara falls and the great lakes were caused by the glaciers of the last ice age.There wsa a big lake where buffalo and Lake Erie are and a large lake where Lake Ontario and Northern Niagara county are. There were several falls drining over the escarpment. The land where lake Erie is started rising because the weight of the ice was removed (and it is still rising today) and cut off all the drains except one- the Niagara River. This wsa about 7000 years ago. Here in the SF bay area where there are lots of active faults, there are hills where the faults are. I live about 2 miles from one of the bigger ones in my area, and it is flat until you get to the fault. On the other side, there are hills that are up to 1500 ft higher than here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Yeah, forget that flood 7000 years ago, or the walls of the world largest city crumbling and killing everyone, or the blood in the rivers of egypt, or the locust, or every first born male being killed unless you had a dead lamb on your door, or the entire egyption army being killed by that river crashing in on them. Also, the Nanking incident where 200,000 were killed. Or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or the earthquake in San Fran about 100 years ago. Or the earthquake in 1556 in Shensi of China. Nearly 1 million killed. Or the flood in Kaifeng in China that killed 300,000 in 1642. How about the earthquake in 893 in Iran that killed over 150,000. The earthquake in 1923 in Japan that killed 300,000. There are plenty more. But sh-- happens. 473902[/snapback] The terrible shame of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that they did not occur on December 8th, and 9th, in 1941. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts