Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Religion / Philosophy
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 11-02-2010, 12:27 PM  
Senior Member
 
Deepskyy's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101 | Kudos: +12
Sure.
The Noahic flood story is a borrowed myth from the surrounding areas. Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the writing of the Torah by hundreds of years has the exact same story in it, with different names.

It is a story meant to demonstrate the vengful and yet compassionate nature of G-d. His vengance upon the sins of humanity, especially the debauchery of the Nephilim mating with mortal women. His compassion to not completely erradicate his creation through the saving of Noah and his family, so that they could repopulate the earth.

Also, there is zero historic evidence that supports a world wide flood. There is however a lot of evidence that localized flooding that would enundate the entire "known" world to the civilizations between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were common and would be seen by these people as a "world destroying" event.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 11:51 PM  
Traveler

Knoxville, TN
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepskyy View Post
Sure.
The Noahic flood story is a borrowed myth from the surrounding areas. Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the writing of the Torah by hundreds of years has the exact same story in it, with different names.

It is a story meant to demonstrate the vengful and yet compassionate nature of G-d. His vengance upon the sins of humanity, especially the debauchery of the Nephilim mating with mortal women. His compassion to not completely erradicate his creation through the saving of Noah and his family, so that they could repopulate the earth.

Also, there is zero historic evidence that supports a world wide flood. There is however a lot of evidence that localized flooding that would enundate the entire "known" world to the civilizations between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were common and would be seen by these people as a "world destroying" event.
I guess this really screws you up.

Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:05 AM  
Senior Member
 
Deepskyy's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101 | Kudos: +12
Nope.
Quote:
The geology of the Grand Canyon area exposes one of the most complete and studied sequences of rock on the planet. The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in western North America. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented, including fossilized sand dunes from an extinct desert. There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon area.

Uplift of the region started about 75 million years ago in the Laramide orogeny; a mountain-building event that is largely responsible for creating the Rocky Mountains to the east. In total the Colorado Plateau was uplifted an estimated 2 miles (3.2 km). The adjacent Basin and Range province to the west started to form about 18 million years ago as the result of crustal stretching. A drainage system that flowed through what is today the eastern Grand Canyon emptied into the now lower Basin and Range province. Opening of the Gulf of California around 6 million years ago enabled a large river to cut its way northeast from the gulf. The new river captured the older drainage to form the ancestral Colorado River, which in turn started to form the Grand Canyon.

Wetter climates brought upon by ice ages starting 2 million years ago greatly increased excavation of the Grand Canyon, which was nearly as deep as it is now by 1.2 million years ago. Volcanic activity deposited lava over the area 1.8 million to 500,000 years ago. At least 13 lava dams blocked the Colorado River, forming lakes that were up to 2,000 feet (610 m) deep. The end of the ice age and subsequent Human activity has greatly reduced the ability of the Colorado River to excavate the canyon. Dams in particular have upset patterns of sediment transport and deposition. Controlled floods from Glen Canyon Dam upstream have been conducted to see if they have a restorative effect. Earthquakes and mass wasting erosive events still affect the region.
More
Quote:
Uplift and nearby extension
Relief map of the roughly oval shape of the Colorado Plateau surrounding the point where the U.S. States of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona meet.
Uplift of the Colorado Plateaus forced rivers to cut down faster.

The Laramide orogeny affected all of western North America by helping to build the American cordillera. The Kaibab Uplift, Monument Upwarp, the Uinta Mountains, San Rafael Swell, and the Rocky Mountains were uplifted, at least in part, by the Laramide orogeny.[54] This major mountain-building event started near the end of the Mesozoic, around 75 million years ago,[51] and continued into the Eocene period of the Cenozoic.[54] It was caused by subduction off the western coast of North America. Major faults that trend north–south and cross the canyon area were reactivated by this uplift.[48] Many of these faults are Precambrian in age and are still active today.[55] Streams draining the Rocky Mountains in early Miocene time terminated in landlocked basins in Utah, Arizona and Nevada but there is no evidence for a major river.[56]

Around 18 million years ago, tensional forces started to thin and drop the region to the west, creating the Basin and Range province.[56] Basins (grabens) dropped down and mountain ranges (horsts) rose up between old and new north–south–trending faults. However, for reasons poorly understood, the beds of the Colorado Plateaus remained mostly horizontal through both events even as they were uplifted about 2 miles (3.2 km) in two pulses.[57][note 2] The extreme western part of the canyon ends at one of the Basin and Range faults, the Grand Wash, which also marks the boundary between the two provinces.[40]

Uplift from the Laramide orogeny and the creation of the Basin and Range province worked together to steepen the gradient of streams flowing west on the Colorado Plateau. These streams cut deep, eastward-growing, channels into the western edge of the Colorado Plateau and deposited their sediment in the widening Basin and Range region.[56]
[edit] Colorado River's birth and its cutting down

Rifting started to create the Gulf of California far to the south 6 to 10 million years ago.[56] Around the same time, the western edge of the Colorado Plateau may have sagged slightly.[56] Both events changed the direction of many streams toward the sagging region and the increased gradient caused them to downcut much faster. From 5.5 million to 5 million years ago, headward erosion to the north and east consolidated these streams into one major river and associated tributary channels.[58] This river, the ancestral Lower Colorado River, started to fill the northern arm of the gulf, which extended nearly to the site of Hoover Dam, with estuary deposits.[56]
A grayish-colored river with some green vegetation on its banks but small compared to the high reddish and tan walls of the canyon it is in.
The Colorado River had cut down to nearly the current depth of the Grand Canyon by 1.2 million years ago.

At the same time, streams flowed from highlands in central Arizona north and across what is today the western Grand Canyon, possibly feeding a larger river.[59] The mechanism by which the ancestral Lower Colorado River captured this drainage and the drainage from much of the rest of the Colorado Plateau is not known. Possible explanations include headward erosion or a broken natural dam of a lake or river.[59] Whatever the cause, the Lower Colorado likely captured the landlocked Upper Colorado somewhere west of the Kaibab Uplift.[58] The much larger drainage area and yet steeper stream gradient helped to further accelerate downcutting.

Ice ages during the Pleistocene brought a cooler and wetter pluvial climate to the region starting 2 to 3 million years ago.[60] The added precipitation increased runoff and the erosive ability of streams (especially from spring melt water and flash floods in summer).[note 3] With a greatly increased flow volume the Colorado cut faster than ever before and started to quickly excavate the Grand Canyon 2 million years before present, almost reaching the modern depth by 1.2 million years ago.[61]

The resulting Grand Canyon of the Colorado River trends roughly east to west for 278 miles (447 km) between Lake Powell and Lake Mead.[62] In that distance, the Colorado River drops 2,000 feet (610 m) and has excavated an estimated 1,000 cubic miles (4,200 km3) of sediment to form the canyon.[63] This part of the river bisects the 9,000-foot (2,700 m)-high Kaibab Uplift[64] and passes seven plateaus (the Kaibab, Kanab, and Shivwits plateaus bound the northern part of the canyon and the Coconino bounds the southern part).[62] Each of these plateaus are bounded by north to south trending faults and monoclines created or reactivated during the Laramide orogeny. Streams flowing into the Colorado River have since exploited these faults to excavate their own tributary canyons, such as Bright Angel Canyon.[note 4]
[edit] Volcanic activity dams the new canyon
Dark-colored mass of rock draped over the side of a canyon
Vulcan's Throne volcano above Lava Falls. Lava flows, such as this heavily eroded remnant, once dammed the Colorado River.

Volcanic activity started in Uinkaret volcanic field (in western Grand Canyon) about 3 million years ago.[65] Over 150 flows of basaltic lava [66] dammed the Colorado River at least 13 times from 725,000 to 100,000 years ago.[67] The dams typically formed in weeks, were 12 to 86 miles (19 to 138 km) long, 150 to 2,000 feet (46 to 610 m) high (thicker upstream and thinner downstream) and had volumes of 0.03 to 1.2 cubic miles (0.13 to 5.0 km3).[68]

The longevity of the dams and their ability to hold Colorado River water in large lakes has been debated. In one hypothesis water from the Colorado River backed up behind the dams in large lakes that extended as far as Moab, Utah.[69] Dams that were 150 to 400 feet (46 to 120 m) high were overtopped by their lakes in 2 to 17 days while dams 200 to 1,000 feet (61 to 300 m) high were overtopped in 22 years.[70] At the same time, sediment filled the lakes behind the dams. Sediment would fill a lake behind a 150-foot (46 m)-high dam in 10.33 months, filled a lake behind an 1,150-foot (350 m)-high dam in 345 years, and filled the lake behind the tallest dam in 3000 years.[70] Cascades of water flowed over a dam while waterfalls migrated up-river along it. Most lava dams lasted for around 10,000 to 20,000 years.[71] However others have proposed that the lava dams were much more ephemeral and failed catastrophically before overtopping.[72] In this model dams would fail due to fluid flow through fractures in the dams and around dam abutments, through permeable river deposits and alluvium.

Since the demise of these dams the Colorado River has carved a maximum of about 160 feet (49 m) into the rocks of the Colorado Plateau [67]
Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And look, mine has footnotes to actual scientific studies... lots and lots of them.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:27 AM  
Traveler

Knoxville, TN
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepskyy View Post
Nope.

More

Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And look, mine has footnotes to actual scientific studies... lots and lots of them.

Not only did you not read it, you were not smart enough to scroll to the bottom of the page.

References

1. Morris, J.D., Cumming, K.B. and Ham, K.A., in press. The grandest of canyons. In: Grand Canyon ? Monument to Catastrophe, S.A. Austin (ed.), Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, chapter 1, p. 1.
2. Baars, D.L., 1962. Permian System of the Colorado Plateau. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, vol. 46, pp. 200?201.
3. Middleton, L.T., Elliott, D.K. andMorales, M., 1990. Coconino Sandstone. In: Grand Canyon Geology, S.S. Beus and M. Morales (eds), Oxford University Press, New York, and Museum of Northern Arizona Press, chapter 10, pp. 183?202.
4. McKee, E.D., 1947. Experiments on the development of tracks in fine cross-bedded sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 17, pp. 23?28.
5. Blakey, R.C., 1990. Supai Group and Hermit Formation. In: Grand Canyon Geology, S.S. Beus and M. Morales (eds), Oxford University Press, New York, and Museum of Northern Arizona Press, chapter 9, pp. 147?202.
6. Turner, C.E., 1990. Toroweap Formation. In: Grand Canyon Geology, S.S. Beus and M. Morales (eds), Oxford University Press, New York, and Museum of Northern Arizona Press, chapter 11, pp. 203?223.
7. Young, D.A., 1990. The discovery ofterrestrial history. In: Portraits of Creation, H.J. Van Till, R.E. Shaw, J.H. Stek and D.A. Young (eds), William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, chapter 3, pp. 80?81.
8. Brand, L.R., 1979. Field and laboratory studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) vertebrate footprints and theirpaleoecological implications. Palaeogreography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol. 28, pp. 25?38.
9. Brand, L.R. and Tang, T., 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin. Geology, vol. 19,pp. 1201?1204.
10. Monastersky, R., 1992. Wading newts may explain enigmatic tracks. Science News, vol. 141 (1), p. 5.
11. Geology Today, vol. 8(3), May?June 1992, pp, 78?79 (Wet tracks).
12. Visher, G.S., 1990. Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd edition, Penn Well Publishing Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 211?213.
13. Kuenen, P.H. and Perdok, W.G., 1962. Experimental abrasion ? frosting and defrosting of quartz grains. Journal of Geology, vol. 70, pp. 648?658.
14. Amos, C.L. and King, E.L., 1984. Bedforms of the Canadian eastern seaboard: a comparison with global occurrences. Marine Geology, vol. 57, pp. 167?208.
15. Allen, J.R.L., 1970. Physical Processes Sedimentation, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, p. 78.
16. Beus, S.S., 1979. Trail log third day: South Kaibab Trail, Grand Canyon, Arizona. In: Carboniferous Stratigraphy in the Grand Canyon Country, Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada, S.S. Beus and R.R. Rawson (eds), American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Virginia, p. 16.
17. Lonsdale, P. and Malfait, B., 1974. Abyssal dunes of foraminiferal sand on the Carnegie Ridge. Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 85, pp. 1697?1712.
18. Rubin, D.N. and McCulloch, D.S., 1980. Single and superimposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay and flume observations. Sedimentary Geology, vol. 26, pp. 207?23 1.
19. Coleman, P.J., 1978. Tsunami sedimentation. In: The Encyclopedia of Sedimentology, R.W. Fairbridge and J. Bourgeois (eds), Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, pp. 828?831.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:37 AM  
Senior Member
 
Deepskyy's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101 | Kudos: +12
What are you talking about? Those are all scientific studies and scholarly journals on Geology. They prove my point that the Grand Canyon wasn't created by a worldwide Noahic flood, but rather by plate tectonics, ice ages, and volcanic activity over MILLIONS of years.


Obvious troll is Obvious and annoying.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:40 AM  
Traveler

Knoxville, TN
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28 | Kudos: +10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepskyy View Post
What are you talking about? Those are all scientific studies and scholarly journals on Geology. They prove my point that the Grand Canyon wasn't created by a worldwide Noahic flood, but rather by plate tectonics, ice ages, and volcanic activity over MILLIONS of years.


Obvious troll is Obvious and annoying.

The author of the article I posted never claimed that either.


So, the troll comment, to get me banned? Running to the mod now?

Typical.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:50 AM  
Senior Member
 
havasu's Avatar

California
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,747 | Kudos: +238
Images: 17
No, but we have been watching closely, all night! Lets all take a break before tempers flare and someone gets hurt.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:52 AM  
Senior Member
 
Deepskyy's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101 | Kudos: +12
I don't want to see anyone banned, just make coherent points.

Ok, I misread the article due to massive sleep deprivation, but dude... ice ages move massive amounts of rock thousands of miles too, and deposit them in places where they don't make sense. History channel did some really neat stories on odd geology in the Grand Canyon. It wasn't a flood, it was an ice age.

The conclusion from the article...
Quote:
We can thus imagine how the Flood would deposit the Coconino Sandstone (and its equivalents), which covers an area of 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres) averages 315 feet (96 metres) thick, and contains a volume of sand conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 cubic kilometres). But where could such an enormous quantity of sand come from? Cross beds within the Coconino dip consistently toward the south, indicating that the sand came from the north. However, along its northern occurrence, the Coconino rests directly on the Hermit Formation, which consists of siltstone and shale and so would not have been an ample source of sand of the type now found in the Coconino Sandstone. Consequently, this enormous volume of sand would have to have been transported a considerable distance, perhaps at least 200 or 300 miles (320 or 480 kilometres). At the current velocities envisaged sand could be transported that distance in a matter of a few days!

Thus the evidence within the Coconino Sandstone does not support the evolutionary geologists interpretation of slow and gradual deposition of sand in a desert environment with dunes being climbed by wandering four-footed vertebrates. On the contrary, a careful examination of the evidence, backed up by experiments and observations of processes operating today indicates catastrophic deposition of the sand by deep fast-moving water in a matter of days, totally consistent with conditions envisaged during the Flood.
I'm trying to find some of the evidence the History channel used, but my google skills are lacking currently.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:59 AM  
Senior Member
 
Deepskyy's Avatar

Charlotte, North Carolina
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 101 | Kudos: +12
Found some!
Glacial erratics!
Rocks that dont belong where they ended up were moved by glacial ice during the ice ages.
Quote:
A glacial erratic is a piece of rock that differs from the size and type of rock native to the area in which it rests. "Erratics" take their name from the Latin word errare, and are carried by glacial ice, often over distances of hundreds of kilometres. Erratics can range in size from pebbles to large boulders such as Big Rock (16,500 tons) in Alberta.

Geologists identify erratics by studying the rocks surrounding the position of the erratic and the composition of the erratic itself. Erratics are significant because:

* Since they are transported by glaciers, they are one of a series of indicators which mark the path of prehistoric glacier movement. Their lithographic origin can be traced to the parent bedrock, allowing for confirmation of the ice flow route.
* They can be transported by ice-rafting. This allows quantification of the extent of glacial flooding resulting from ice dam failure which release the waters stored in proglacial lakes such as Lake Missoula. Erratics released by ice-rafts that were stranded and subsequently melt, dropping their load, allow characterization of the high water marks for transient floods in areas like temporary Lake Lewis.
* Erratics dropped by icebergs melting in the ocean can be used to track Antarctic and Arctic-region glacial movements for periods prior to record retention. These can be correlated with ocean temperatures and levels to better understand and calibrate models of the global climate.[1]
Glacial erratic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 01:01 AM  
Traveler

Knoxville, TN
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28 | Kudos: +10
My coherent point is, nothing is conclusive, ever. It just depends on who's science you want to use to make whatever position you favor.

FWIW, If I wanted to bother, I remember stories of sea shells in deserts and at elevations they should not be....sea life fossils where they should not be...you will never come to a definetive conclusion. I choose the theory that best aligns with my faith. What is the point of having faith to only spend all my time and energy to disprove my faith?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Religion / Philosophy
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.