Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I am aware of the rise of the wooden sailing vessels to the point that a barge of 300+ feet sailed across the Mediterranean right about the time of Christ. The Minoan vessels were much smaller but large enough that they dominated the sea lanes of 1500 BC. The Junks of China kept growing in size. "1421" claims that the 7 masted treasure ships were 450 feet but China scholars claim 300 feet, and that is after 1400 AD. The Sumerians had the "100" ships and the "300" ships. We do not know if that was a claim for length or weight. We do have their bills of lading, and these ocean going reed boats carried many tons at least 1,000 years before similar capacity wooden boats did. (1,500 years before the Minoans.)
Well, nautical concerns were not a huge passion of mine, I am going on things picked up through documentaries and here and there.
I am quite aware, however, that reed boats are among the earliest, and could be made quite large as well.
This is total speculation. There is not an atom of good evidence for it.
What down and outs are being helped by the Creation museum and the films, books and propaganda campaigns mounted by the Creationist lobby? They have the money to prove this stuff if it had anything to it. But it remains terribly vagueand unconvincing except to those who desperately want to find evidence for the Literally-interpreted Bible. even if it doesn't really help. .
You parrot 'rain alone did not flood the earth' I said nothing about rain. There is no sign of 'fountains of the deep'. I know because I spent quote some time on a former board with a flood-nut looking for evidence of them. All sorts of stuff from tectonic folds to undersea continental faults were presented as evidence of undersea 'fountains of the deep'. In the end, there was nothing, but hopeful speculations, dismissal of natural formations and wild claims. You have produced nothing better.
If these cities are now below the flood-sea because the ground collaped, what are the claims for walls, streets and even domes about? The whole thing would have collapsed in rubble, not looked like drowned cities. Again, your 'evidence' argues against the flood, not for it.
Why would you think the cities would have collapsed to rubble? The collapse would not of been like a bridge falling down. The water hydraulic would of allowed for a steady sinking of the earths crust, which would of allowed large sections of the earth to sink. And yet keeping the structures intact. And this would be the (only explanation,) that could explain why we are finding manmade buildings thousands of feet below the sea.
Also, Genesis 8:2 tells us the fountains of the deep were opened. According to EarthTimes it appears in the center of the mid-Atlantic scientists are now reporting that thousands of square kilometers of the Earth's crust is missing, and it is like an "open wound". MacLeod a marine geologist says it appears the crust is completely missing.
And if the fountains of the deep opened up as the Bible states they did, this is exactly what you would expect to find. And (opened wound) in the earth. My evidence points to nothing but the Flood of Noah. From reports coming to us, from the top of Mt. Ararat, to reports from the bottom of the seas. Ancient manmade structures deep below the oceans, open wounds, and earths missing crust only confirms the Biblical account.
A "one meter rise" would equal how many meters of shore line lost?
I would suggest you try thinking here, the arguement had nothing to do with shoreline. It had to do with a city that is 130 feet below the surface of the sea. And one meter after 8300 years would not account for the city being at a depth of 130 feet. Now, do you understand?
Good grief! There is no such thing as fountains of the deep.. Using the anomaly of the suspected missing crust in the Atlantic to back up your myth is beyond ridiculous. None of your so called evidence proves a flood....Did you see the chart I posted on the last page? I notice that you haven't acknowledged your gross error nor have you addressed my question...
You constantly say that science is wrong and conspiring against creationists, but I see that you are not shy about citing science when you think it can be used to confirm one of your looney ideas. You are quite the piece of work.
I would suggest you try thinking here, the arguement had nothing to do with shoreline. It had to do with a city that is 130 feet below the surface of the sea. And one meter after 8300 years would not account for the city being at a depth of 130 feet. Now, do you understand?
8400 years ago the sea level was about 35 meters lower, not one meter, Campbell...That is the error I wanted you to admit.
This also means one heck of a lot more water would have been required to cover the entire earth.....All of the calculations regarding the amount of water needed are based on today's sea level....So that adds another huge dimension to the problem faced by creationists.
NO, actually the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Biblical account by 1500 years, would explain them quite nicely. That's why Christians are dragging their feet in exploring these cities - they know this is overwhelming evidence that the Sumerian gods are real and theirs is a sham. All hail Enlil!
The Epic of Gigamesh is just a reading of the same story that got to press before the Bible, only the Bible tells it more accurately. And that is why the Bible states the Ark landed on the Mountains of Ararat. and the Epic of Gigamesh states the Ark landed on Mt. Nisir. No one really knows where Mt. Nisir is today, yet everyone knows where Mountains of Ararat is located. And it is on Mt. Ararat, where the Ark of Noah has been spotted by so many over the years.
8400 years ago the sea level was about 35 meters lower, not one meter, Campbell...That is the error I wanted you to admit.
This also means one heck of a lot more water would have been required to cover the entire earth.....All of the calculations regarding the amount of water needed are based on today's sea level....So that adds another huge dimension to the problem faced by creationists.
Well that depends on which scientist you want to believe. You know it's just like numbers they throw out for Evolution. If you recall, soft tissue could only last 100,000 years, then they said it can last 75 million years. Who can you believe? Who's to say your scientist is right, and my scientist is wrong? LOL
Well that depends on which scientist you want to believe. You know it's just like numbers they throw out for Evolution. If you recall, soft tissue could only last 100,000 years, then they said it can last 75 million years. Who can you believe? Who's to say your scientist is right, and my scientist is wrong? LOL
Show me your scientist that claims the sea level was only one meter lower 8400 years ago. Either that, or for once in your life admit that you are wrong.
Show me your scientist that claims the sea level was only one meter lower 8400 years ago. Either that, or for once in your life admit that you are wrong.
sanspeur, I was unable to locate my orginal link, however, I located another one that stated that Particia Masters discovered a fibrous root dated at 8270+/500 years at the 10-fathom terrace. And this discovery indicates sea levels have risen between 18 to 20 meters or 58 to 65 feet over the last 10,000 years. So here again, this would not account for man-made buildings at a 130 foot depth, especially when the India site was dated to around 9,000 years. consider the link below. Why would I admit that I was wrong when I am only posting information that is presented by others. As I have stated here, who is to say which findings are right?
The Epic of Gigamesh is just a reading of the same story that got to press before the Bible, only the Bible tells it more accurately. And that is why the Bible states the Ark landed on the Mountains of Ararat.
Yes you keep repeating that like a broken record. Unfortunately, reality doesn't bear that out, nor does it work that way. The story that is 1500 years older than the Biblical account isn't just a fluke or a case of "getting to press first". Gilgamesh is the original story, the real deal. It and the Bible are both fairytales of course, but the Biblical account is the plagiarized and extrapolated version. Sorry!
Keep up the obstinate BS'ing and wishful thinking tho - it's amusing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
