Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Riaan

The Creation and the Flood

72 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Riaan said:

Now how did all these myths come into existence? And likewise, the creation myths? Mankind was not around 4 billion years ago, so they must refer to another event.

Just so stories

Humans are naturally curious.  "how?"  "why?"

Some flood myths undoubedly relate to real events.  Others were made up to explain, for example, fossil shells found in mountain tops and giant bones dug out of the ground.  

Also worth noting the Noach tale is itself derivative and, significantly, Noah built a box (ark) not a boat - because the people for whom the tale was evening entertainment had no knowledge of boats, but that had heard how the a wooden box was used to protect their most holy relics and so a box was a natural thing to protect humans too (albeit a very big box).

As an aside, the British dont have a flood myth - just local tales to explain, for example, why tree stumps can be seen below the tide line, even though some of our ancestors must have experienced the "Storregga tsunami" and the flooding of Doggerland

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

I read a book, or part of it, called Worlds in Collision, that had collected information on this subject, I can't remember the author. 

One thing I wonder about, though, is that bones decompose.  I mean, we don't really have an accurate representation of the past based on bones...  I was wondering more, if anyone has more information.  I heard, most fossils are just imprints of bones, but the museums lead us to believe they have actual bones, but bones are very rare to come by...  I also wonder about he accuracy of carbon dating, because I'm pretty sure if something has been in the desert for long enough, its half life would not be consistant, but that if radiation were exposed to the earth the half life could increase a lot, making carbon dating absolete... I don't think these scientists are considering all these factors, but are lying...  I don't want to take either side, but I'm sure there is something being hidden, facts about radiation and the amount of fossils on record.

I think honestly it's pretty hard to completely refute these things, except by hypothesis, or maybe theory...  but never by law.

Radiation can affect carbon dating. However, since scientists are aware of this, they do compensate for this.  You can read about radio carbon dating here:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/ecol438/radiocarbon.html

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

You also seem to be under some misconceptions about bones and fossils.

While some fossils are imprints of bones, many are not. The fossilization proccess can also preserve more than bones; it can preserve soft tissue, dinosaur eggs, imprints of feathers, dinosaur excrement (coprolites) and even the remains of plants. Fossils are formed in different ways:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleobotany

 

radio carbon dating is not used on fossils. Fossils are by definition over 100k years old and radio carbon dating really doesn't work on anything older than 20k years.

Why do you think that there are hidden facts about radiation and the amount of fossils on record? The fossil record is incomplete, but that is not surprising due to the age of fossils and the circumstances necessary to create them. This is why scientists go out and look for fossils.

Scientists are expected to publish their findings. One of the facts of life in the academic world is "Publish or Perish." When their findings are published, they are subject to peer review. This means that all of the findings are scrutinized for accuracy by other scientists in the same field.

Do frauds happen? Do scientist sometimes lie? Do they occasionally suppress information? Yes, unfortunately. The price for doing so is very high--the scientist will never work again.

However, before you jump on my statement "scientists sometimes lie," you need to consider several other factors about science.

1. Most scientists dream about making new discoveries. if a paleontologist discovers a new fossil, it would be in the paleontologist' best interest to publish it because it is good for their careers.

2. If an archeologist could provide proof of a 10k year old civilization in the form of a body of verifiable artifacts, the results would be fame and fortune for life.  

3. Another thing that you need to understand is that scientists don't work alone. Groups of scientist around the globe are studying radiation, for example. Given how competitive scientists are, it is unlikely that they would all be lying.

4. Scientific findings are regularly reassessed and reconsidered by other scientists and scientists will often draw different conclusions about the same evidence, and they will do it in print. Academic and scientific debate is often quite heated. I know because I experienced this in graduate school.

5. And yes it does take time for new theories to gain acceptance. A good example of the is Chris Stringer's "Out of Africa" theory of human evolution. But the point of being a good scientist or archeologist is that you admit you are wrong when new new evidence comes to light. You don't simply ignore facts that don't fit your theories.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Riaan said:

As far as the 'falling sky' is concerned, South American myths relate that people had to hide in caves to escape the fire, and had to push a stick out to see if it would catch fire, before it was safe for them to leave. They also related that the sea was boiling. 

Fact check.

Aside from a complete lack of geological evidence for such a calamity, I would like to point out the following:

Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The sheer amount of energy needed boil the seas would mean that the ambient air temperature would be so high  fhat no one standing next to the ocean at the time would likely survive to describe the event. Boiling oceans would also kill of most marine life.

Wood burns at 572 degrees Fahrenheit. This would kill off most if not all life on the surface of the planet. The temperature of a cave is usually the average of the annual temperature of the region around the cave. https://www.reference.com/science/normal-cave-temperature-fec44a85a4eae039

So hiding in caves would be useless. Also the likelihood of anyone surviving an air temperature of 572 degrees for more than a few minutes is nonexistent.

Provided that anyone survived that calamity, what would they eat?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Riaan said:

"Yes but how would humans on the other side of the world associate the tremors to a collision?"

 

This specific myth does nog guess what the cause might have been - it only describes the after-effects, which we know could practically only have been caused by an impact of some kind.

Agreed we might know that but how would the people of that time have know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Aside from a complete lack of geological evidence for such a calamity, I would like to point out the following:

Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The sheer amount of energy needed boil the seas would mean that the ambient air temperature would be so high  fhat no one standing next to the ocean at the time would likely survive to describe the event. Boiling oceans would also kill of most marine life."

A crack or fissure in the crust of the earth would certainly produce steam. 

Wood burns at 572 degrees Fahrenheit. This would kill off most if not all life on the surface of the planet. The temperature of a cave is usually the average of the annual temperature of the region around the cave. https://www.reference.com/science/normal-cave-temperature-fec44a85a4eae039

So hiding in caves would be useless. Also the likelihood of anyone surviving an air temperature of 572 degrees for more than a few minutes is nonexistent."

It is not to say that the entire atmosphere was that hot - if the "sky had fallen", there would have been extremely hot patches where scattered pieces of the meteorite/asteroid would have fallen. All these legends admittedly tend to exaggerate actual events (if they are based on such events). The Ark would never have taken a pair of each type of animal on board, but rather domesticated animals and livestock, to ensure that they could survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, seems to me I did not describe it correctly. I was an actual event which scribes post facto associated with some future event, or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tinfoil hat said:

Provided that anyone survived that calamity, what would they eat?

 

Tardigrades :D

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170714071459.htm

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Riaan said:

The crust floats on the liquid lava outer core, so an impact that glanced off the crust may have imparted enough energy to move the crust by a couple of degrees. I seem to recall a number of other legends which also recorded that the position of the sun or heavenly bodies had moved.

The distance from the surface to the outer core of the Earth is 1,790 miles.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

The last time any event caused Earth's crust to move was the collision of the Earth with a Mars-sized object.  This temporarily destroyed both objects, which then reformed.  

Meteors don't just "glance off" Earth and move its outer skin, any more than a large beetle bouncing off your car's hood is going to move your whole car's body frame by an inch or so.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riaan said:

The Ark would never have taken a pair of each type of animal on board, but rather domesticated animals and livestock, to ensure that they could survive.

Actually, it was two pairs of unclean beasts and seven pairs of clean beasts.

Genesis 7:2, King James: 
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Riaan said:

The crust floats on the liquid lava outer core, so an impact that glanced off the crust may have imparted enough energy to move the crust by a couple of degrees. I seem to recall a number of other legends which also recorded that the position of the sun or heavenly bodies had moved.

The crust does not float on the core. It lies on the outside of the mantle. The mantle is quite thick and plastic. This is just one of so many errors being spouted in this thread. Most of these have been pointed out.

I find another big issue is that there is the idea that myths are based on truth, that there is some kernel of truth to a myth. I simply don't buy it. Just because myth involves a flood and floods are real does not mean that a flood myth is based on any particular flood. People have been smart for a long time and surely able to construct fictional accounts. Besides the flood stories are all different. Some are local and others global. Some replace people A with a completely different people type B. Some involve resin and not water. Some kill all and some kill some and others none.

Another problem is an impact. The end of the Cretaceous bolide was 12 miles across. Here we want some impact that has not been located.

Another problem is the dates in which events from millions of years ago are being moved to recent times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

The crust does not float on the core. It lies on the outside of the mantle. The mantle is quite thick and plastic. This is just one of so many errors being spouted in this thread. Most of these have been pointed out.

I find another big issue is that there is the idea that myths are based on truth, that there is some kernel of truth to a myth. I simply don't buy it. Just because myth involves a flood and floods are real does not mean that a flood myth is based on any particular flood. People have been smart for a long time and surely able to construct fictional accounts. Besides the flood stories are all different. Some are local and others global. Some replace people A with a completely different people type B. Some involve resin and not water. Some kill all and some kill some and others none.

Another problem is an impact. The end of the Cretaceous bolide was 12 miles across. Here we want some impact that has not been located.

Another problem is the dates in which events from millions of years ago are being moved to recent times.

Pffft... your Superior Science is no match for my Feeble Weapons ! :P 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The impact of a meteor or comet with Earth would have sent shock waves all over the planet, resulting in cracks in the crust of the Earth and boiling water when these cracks became flooded. Other legends also relate that the sky had moved, and the Scandinavian Flood Myth unequivocally states that the axis of the Earth had moved (i.e. the precession of the Earth was most likely caused by the impact). The falling stars match the South American legends in this respect, confirming that the Earth had been hit by a celestial object. Above all, this specific legend confirms that the earth and men only emerged from the waters after the impact (they had existed long before it occurred). In other words, the Creation occurred after Noah’s Flood, and not the other way around.

Any comments, assuming that these legends were inspired by actual events?

An impact does not necessarily result in "cracks in the crust of the Earth". A crater is formed.Material is ejected. That material can ignite fires. Cracks that can flood cannot happen. A good example of that fiction is seen in the movie 2012. The boiling you describe cannot happen.

The idea that the Earth can be tipped is not impossible. An example is Uranus with its huge axial tilt. That tilt is suspected to have been from a huge object impacting the planet, a life killer impact. Studies show that the Earth has not tilted much in the last 800y. At most a 1 degree tilt change per million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Noah indeed took two, or seven, of each animal with him on the ark, how did he prevent inbreeding when they had to repopulate the Earth ?

Or for that matter how did he ensure that the animals ended up where they were supposed to after the flood ? For example how did the kangaroo's all know that they had to go to Australia and how did they find their way there ? How did Noah find them in Australia in the first place ? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, it was two pairs of unclean beasts and seven pairs of clean beasts.

Genesis 7:2, King James: 
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
 

I never understood why anything unclean would have been created. Why not just make everything clean? It sounds flawed. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I never understood why anything unclean would have been created. Why not just make everything clean? It sounds flawed. 

On the other hand this is the same God that is still punishing every human for something that one person did about 6000 years ago.

Its also the same God that killed all animal on Earth, apart from those on Noahs boat, for something that humans supposedly did. Thats a little harsh on the animals isn't it ?

He also created his world with such things as earthquakes, drought, floodings, hurricanes, diseases etc. Flawed indeed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

On the other hand this is the same God that is still punishing every human for something that one person did about 6000 years ago.

Its also the same God that killed all animal on Earth, apart from those on Noahs boat, for something that humans supposedly did. Thats a little harsh on the animals isn't it ?

He also created his world with such things as earthquakes, drought, floodings, hurricanes, diseases etc. Flawed indeed.

And isn't everything "unclean" anyway? Apparently, there are germs all over everything, including people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ChaosRose said:

And isn't everything "unclean" anyway? Apparently, there are germs all over everything, including people.

Can somone tell me from what criteria the bible decided if something is clean or unclean ?

I must admit I never got to read the whole thing. I found most of it immensely boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Can somone tell me from what criteria the bible decided if something is clean or unclean ?

I must admit I never got to read the whole thing. I found most of it immensely boring.

There was something about cloven hooves and chewing the cud. Otherwise, I remember fish are ok, but no shellfish. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

There was something about cloven hooves and chewing the cud. Otherwise, I remember fish are ok, but no shellfish. 

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-clean-and-unclean-meats/infographic-which

infographic-bible-clean-vs-unclean-meats

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to make sense of the myths and how they came about :) Let's leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Riaan said:

Now how did all these myths come into existence? And likewise, the creation myths? Mankind was not around 4 billion years ago, so they must refer to another event. 

The same applies to a myriad of other myths about gods and ancient peoples. All pipe dreams? We do have evidence for the existence of ancient civilizations - the 'anomalies' we find all over the world.

Ok a quick crash course in anthropology.

While cultures around the globe are quite different, most early cultures across the globe face the same problems and develop similar solutions to the problems they face. So comparing the old and new world, both developed pottery, agriculture, cities, and the concept of kingship independently. We know this from the archeological record and differences in dates  as to when these innovations developed. The wheel, for example was developed independently across different cultures.

Early cultures also probably asked the same questions such as "where do we come from?" "Why are there seasons?" "Where does the rain/wind/snow etc. come from?" "Why the hell won't it stop raining?" And  the most universal question on the planet "why is everything going wrong?" This last question is usually followed by "what can we do to fix this mess?" Or if you belief in gods, "which one is angry with us, why are they angry, and what can we do to make things right?"

At there most basic and fundamental levels, myths and beliefs in gods provide a handy answers to some of these questions. Once people develop the concept of supernatural beings such as gods and spirits, they have beings to appeal to when things go wrong, and beings to blame when they go wrong. In reading the Arcana Mundi, I was astonished to find that when things were going wrong, the Greeks would take the statues of the gods out of the temple, drag them through town, and flog them to punish the gods for neglecting their divine duties towards their followers.

But it gets much more complicated than this. Myths, religions and the rituals serve to define cultural and group identities. They grow and change over time to meet the different needs of the culture. If groups such as the Australian aborigines are any guide, the myths of some of the early hunter gatherer societies could be incredibly complex and sophisticated.

While most cultures seem to have creation myths and share a belief in gods, there are important differences in these myths and deities. For example,  the Egyptians and the Hebrews have a flood myth, but they are quite different. Both begin with divine wrath, but in the Egyptian flood myth the gods send a flood of beer to distract the goddess Sekhmet, who had been sent to punish mankind and was getting too bloodthirsty. So in the Egyptian story, the flood actually saves mankind.

Sumerians and Egyptians both believed in an afterlife. The Sumerian underworld is a gray shadowy place where everyone goes. (Although a few scholars disagree arguing that there is some  visual imagery that implies that there may be a better afterlife..) The Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh describes the hero's quest for immortality, which fails, and ends with the advice to Gilgamesh to cherish and enjoy life.   In ancient Egypt,  each soul is weighed against the feather of Ma'at as a test of righteousness. If a soul passed the test, it went to the Egyptian version of heaven. So while the Egyptians enjoyed life, they were also heavily invested in rituals and spells to make sure they got into their heaven.

So really what I am trying to say is that you need to look beyond the surfaces similarities in myths and beliefs in deities, and dig deeper to develop a better understanding of these issues. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tinfoil hat said:

 Fossils are by definition over 100k years old and radio carbon dating really doesn't work on anything older than 20k years.

Greetings Tinfoil, and welcome to the pages. Merely a correction:

With newer technologies, particularly AMS, radiocarbon dating can be utilized for specimens as old as 50 kya. Under certain conditions, the dating of samples as old as 60 kya-75 kya are possible, though the SD naturally becomes less precise as does the calibration. Further research at Suigetsu could potentially provide insight into the latter.

.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Swede said:

Greetings Tinfoil, and welcome to the pages. Merely a correction:

With newer technologies, particularly AMS, radiocarbon dating can be utilized for specimens as old as 50 kya. Under certain conditions, the dating of samples as old as 60 kya-75 kya are possible, though the SD naturally becomes less precise as does the calibration. Further research at Suigetsu could potentially provide insight into the latter.

.

Thanks for the new info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stereologist said:

 This is just one of so many errors being spouted in this thread. Most of these have been pointed out.

It ain't easy being the only person ever to understand history correctly. Sometimes you get things wrong.

--Jaylemurph

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to several creationist talks and one was sure that the Earth had not changed much since the flood. A calculation showed that 18 Atlantic oceans would be needed to flood the whole Earth and cover all of the mountains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.