Flood of Gilgamesh written long before Noahs flood. Look at how simular!!

by Lady Liberty 59 Replies latest watchtower bible

hillary_step

JCanon,
Why do your posts look as if they have been written by three people....personalities....errr....okay, sorry, no need for you to answer that one.
HS
Caedes

Come on JC don't let the godless heathens get you down, they're all going to burn in hell anyway.
wherehasmyhairgone

meant in a light hearted way.
JCanon

I am not going to quote the whole article quoted, But seriously doesn't anyone else see the bade science going on here, they are shifting evidence to a convieniant starting point then build a case around. But has any work been done by creationists on this...no all they ever do is take other people work and misquote and misrepresent it to their own ends.
I appreciate your point and certainly there is fudging by the Creationists but there is also avoidance and deception on the part of evolutionists as well. I recently took a fresh look at evolution and discussed some issues with evolutionists. When I tried to get a firm answer on some things that I thought would need explaining in view of the Bible's timeline. I couldn't really pinpoint anything. The RC14 dating, for instance, of non-fossilized dinosaur bones. I found out RC14 is only good for things less than 30-50,000 years old. Some dating they did come up with was as low as 9,000 years. So it was nondefinitive. I think I was honestly looking.
As soon as I brought up abiogenesis the evolutionists bailed out big time explaining that had nothing to do with evolution so they weren't nor were required to address it.
In the end, though, I was persuaded by some of the evidence that some species do indeed adapt to their environment, and certainly would would have to understand that especially after the flood. Birds had to migrate suddenly. Bears hybernate. Animals grow thicker fur is they are in the hot climate. And many became carnivorous. So I think some animals did evolve. Maybe some had to be replaced. But evolutionists were not satisfied with that little creationist compromise, because they wanted enough time and drastic changes so that separate species were developed that became distinct from its parent species.
But all that makes little sense, since all the steps involved we still have everything, from the single cell amoeba to the complex mamals and man. Why did some have to evolve and others not. Plus you have to ignore the sheer BEAUTY of the earth and what we see. The complex ecological system. Or just contemplate a pear tree. What does man do for the pear tree so that it needs to grow delicious fruit for us to eat. Maybe our gazes are radioactive that help the tree to develop or something, something scientists haven't discovered. OR, it could just be a wonderful fruit tree that God made so we didn't have to eat tacos all day and night. There's too much variety and it is too obvious WHY these things are here. They serve a purpose and that purpose is clear. To have evolution come up with this just because it has enough time to do it, simply, to me, is RIDICULOUS. That's why after a while I just say evolutionists are STUPID. They are. They are missing some sense of perception.
Plus science is limited, onesided tool. It doesn't address what we understand in the abstract. Like emotions, morality, beauty. Those things are beyond science but reflect an amazing and loving God/Creator. And THEN, though they didn't want to start out on those things and just wanted to stick to evolution, eventually the focus came right back to their evidence for an extremely old earth, 400 millions years old. Which has nothing to do with evolution either.
One conclusion I came to was that if someone doesn't understand fully the entire context or specifics of something, just like we can't probably check behind radiometric dating unless we get a college degree specializing in that, then there reason to be cautious and doubt just because we are not sure of something so scientifically advanced. So we continue to give God the option and believe in him.
So with all due respect, some of the research on both sides if frustrating and I don't expect to have all the answers to every single issue.
Finally, the Creationists will mention one thing, about mammoths being whole and frozen while standing up or kneeling, then you'll come along and say they were rotted and rotting when they were frozen. So there are all these conflicting reports.
And what about tropical vegetation found underneath the ice in the artic? Doesn't that say it was once a warmer climate? So there's enough to support the flood out there, especially for someone who needs to believe it really happened anyway.
JCanon
Nathan Natas

It thought the Epic of Giligan's Mesh went like this:
"Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip,
That started from this tropic port,
Aboard this tiny ship.
The mate was a mighty sailing man,
The skipper brave and sure.
Five passengers set sail that day,
For a three hour tour, a three hour tour.
The weather started getting rough,
The tiny ship was tossed,
If not for the courage of the fearless crew,
The minnow would be lost, the minnow would be lost.
The ship set ground on the shore of this uncharted desert isle,
With Gilligan,
The Skipper too,
The millionaire and his wife,
The movie star,
The Professor and Mary Ann
Here on Gilligan's Mesh!"
wherehasmyhairgone

JCanon
I appreciate your point and certainly there is fudging by the Creationists but there is also avoidance and deception on the part of evolutionists as well. I recently took a fresh look at evolution and discussed some issues with evolutionists. When I tried to get a firm answer on some things that I thought would need explaining in view of the Bible's time line. I couldn't really pinpoint anything. The RC14 dating, for instance, of non-fossilized dinosaur bones. I found out RC14 is only good for things less than 30-50,000 years old. Some dating they did come up with was as low as 9,000 years.
Actually Carbon dating has gotten a lot more accurate but the outside time limit is about 70k max, so anyone using carbon14 dating on dinosaur bones needs their heads examine, Dinosaurs are dating from a number of methods, and the starting point is usually the layer it is found in.
As soon as I brought up abiogenesis the evolutionists bailed out big time explaining that had nothing to do with evolution so they weren't nor were required to address it
I don't know why they shyed away from it, it certainly is a new field and still has a lot of unanswered question, So what is your question about it, i promise i will not bail-out.
Plus science is limited, one sided tool. It doesn't address what we understand in the abstract. Like emotions, morality, beauty
I can not remember the originator of this quote, but science tells you how, and Religion tells you why, it a pretty good line all in all. However remember that science isn't limited to viable things only, so although love can't be placed into a specific scientific category, that i snot to say that science will be able to explain the mechanism behind love, we are already learning , that chemicals in the brain can severely restrict of absent certain emotions..so instead of dismissing it, i kinda like watch this space comment better.
then there reason to be cautious and doubt just because we are not sure of something so scientifically advanced. So we continue to give God the option and believe in him.
That an interesting point. But if you don't understand something, to simply says God did it, is such an unforfilling answer, plus that attitude would set us back to the dark ages.
Finally, the Creationists will mention one thing, about mammoths being whole and frozen while standing up or kneeling, then you'll come along and say they were rotted and rotting when they were frozen. So there are all these conflicting reports.
This something that annoys me with creationists, they don't do their own work, Their claims are dismissed because they haven't bothered looking at the evidence. They take one statement about vegetation being is the mouth of a mammoth, and suddenly pick it up and run with it, then it becomes, a complete in tact mammoth frozen with vegetations in its mouth.
And what about tropical vegetation found underneath the ice in the arctic? Doesn't that say it was once a warmer climate? So there's enough to support the flood out there, especially for someone who needs to believe it really happened anyway.
Sure the climate was warmer, and colder throughout the earth history, but that still doesn't coniside with biblical timelines. The fact is Adam was being created when the Sumerians firs invented Glue!.
regards
steve
PS thanks for showing me how to use the quote button!
JCanon

This something that annoys me with creationists, they don't do their own work, Their claims are dismissed because they haven't bothered looking at the evidence. They take one statement about vegetation being is the mouth of a mammoth, and suddenly pick it up and run with it, then it becomes, a complete in tact mammoth frozen with vegetations in its mouth.
Well, it may actually be worse than that. Apparently this had been claimed before but I actually read a quote from someone who actually found some of these mammoths and they explained in detail about the condition of the flesh, that it was edible and presumed these animals must have been grazing. Even saying some were still standing up! And others kneeling. So they were not dead when they were frozen. (I'll try to find that quote again).
Or this one:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp
This is a detailed reference but when I presented it to evolutionists on a board recently, they immediately said it was "fraudulent." Now this was shocking to me since generally, of course, this was not that religious or personal, just discussing research and stuff, comparing facts. Then suddenly they sounded like the Creationists-fundamentalists who claim fraud when something isn't working out just right. I thought to myself: "It's the same on both sides!" It's a big mess I can likely never figure out. So I just gave up once it deteriorated to that point. Once your argument gets to the point of saying the evidence presented must be fabricated then you know the point is made but there is a roadblock to objectivity; not that sometimes there aren't things that are fabricated or fraudulently presented.
I'll try to find the quote about the mamoths at the anti-evolution webpage I saw it at. I always try to bookmark some of these but inevitably don't the ones I always end up needing again!
In the meantime, can you provide a source to this as well, where they found the meat rotted and everything. This was a herd of them. Were they all killed at the same time and same place and in the same general condition? You find your quote and I'll try to find mine and we'll compare over a glass of wine (or something stronger!)
JCanon
POSTSCRIPT: I just found this looking for the quote I wanted. This talks about the Siberian find. It doesn't necessarily go with the Flood theory of the fast-freezing, but it still would contradict that these animals were rotted/rotting at the time of being frozen or had died before they were frozen for any length of time. Though presenting a theory about the quick-freeze and preservation, they still can't explain why these grazing animals would be in Siberia if there wasn't plenty of vegetation there at one time. This so clearly shows a sudden drastic change in climate and brings up issues beyond whether these mamoths had died and were rotting when frozen, as if by the next winter storm explaining everything. So, your move!
JCanon

Here is the pro-Biblical answer to most evolution vs Creation and science versus Flood discussion!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
It's a field day!
JCanon
wherehasmyhairgone
okie dokie,
Well i read the answer in genesis site, i had a long time ago subscribed to the newsletter, i particularly like the one about proposing that T-REX could have been fire breathing! Anyway...
Okay well Mike oard, made some interesting claims with with no references at all. So the self titled Mr Ice Age needs to produce some facts to back his claims up. so here i will listed some reference books which are quoted a number of site although the entire text is not available
SO i will take his claims one by one and provide science peer review personal or publication to back my statements, and where possible direct quote and link.
Mr Ice Age says: They are essentially a hairy elephant
This a misleading statement, Mammoths closest relative is an Asian elephant and these branches broke away from their common ancestors which eventually became the African elephant 6-7 mya. Now the spilt from the the what would become the asian elephant happened about 5.5mya. There were a number distinct differences to the elephants we see today, those wishing to read more about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_Mammoth
EDIT/ADDITION: i cam across this today which makes my dating out, so here is the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6913934.stm
Mike Oard explained. “They are not found in isolation, but with a wide variety of other mammals, large and small, many of which were grazers. Indeed, there have been many hundreds of thousands of large mammoths found in Siberia, and many millions of bones.”
I have searched and search for any references to back this claims of hundreds of thousands have been found, if he is referring to fossil bones of mammoths then maybe, although i would still Ike to find some reference. And in a complete kick or irony i will reference an answer given by AIG own site spokesman " First, six million mammoths is hugely exaggerated. There are fewer than 50 known woolly mammoth carcasses, only about a half-dozen of which were complete. An estimated 50,000 tusks have been found, although there may have been a million mammoths living at one time. " link http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/mammoth.asp SO they are contradicting themselves on the same issue.
“But”, says Oard, “there are many perplexing questions relating to the Siberian mammoth finds. Why would they want to live in Siberia anyway?” The point is that they need a grassland environment with a long growing season, mild winters and very little permafrost—quite different from the climate in the region today.
For starter it is accepted by the science community that Mammoth were suited for a cold environment. The body makeup shows this clearly. SO the question is weather there was the diets requirement around where they inhabited. well today's Siberian steppes area could not support the mammoths in any large qualities assume they eating similar to our modern elephants. However during our last ice age this areas WAS NOT covered by ice at all, and the ground was not frozen,
Carroll, A. V., 1984, Glaciology and the Ice Age: Journal of Geological Education, v. 32,
Ruddiman, W. F., 1984, Ice-age thermal and climatic role of the surface Atlantic Ocean, 40 degrees N to 63 degrees N: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 95,
Most perplexing of all, how did they die and how were the carcasses frozen? “To freeze like that, and for the tusks and bones to be well preserved, quick burial is necessary,” Mike said. “There needs to be a plausible explanation for how all those mammoths ended up in the rock-hard permafrost.”
What about the amazing preservation of their stomach contents? Was an asteroid involved? Where does Noah’s Flood fit in?
OK taking the last 2 points at the same time , again with references unlike Mike.
I actually thought his link was rather apt as it is taking the claims from the WTS own book. this link contains again scien journal references
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html
he reports of frozen mammoths with well-preserved flesh are greatly exaggerated. Parts of cadavers have been well preserved, but in all cases, the internal organs were rotted, or the body was partly eaten by scavengers, or both, before the animal became frozen. The Berezovka mammoth, perhaps the most famous example, showed evidence of very slow decay and was putrefied to the point that the excavators found its stench unbearable (Weber 1980). The best preserved mammoth, Dima, was an infant; its small size and starved condition permitted quicker freezing, and even it had a little decomposition (Guthrie 1990, 7).

There are probably several different causes of the deaths of frozen mammoths and other animals, including the following:
Sinking in muddy silt (Guthrie 1990, 7-24).
Drowning/burial in flash floods carrying a heavy load of silt.
Predation, followed by winter freezing, followed by burial in silt carried by snowmelt (Guthrie 1990, 81-113).
Fall in a landslide, as a thawed riverbank gives way under the animal's weight. The landslide and subsequent soil creep can bury and preserve the animal (Kurtén 1986, chap. 9).

The food found with the mammoths were arctic species. Some mammoth deaths would have been sudden, but there is no evidence of sudden climate change.
Frozen mammoths are not common. As of 1961, only thirty-nine have been found with some flesh preserved, and only four of those were more or less intact (Farrand 1961).
References:

Farrand, William R., 1961. Frozen mammoths and modern geology. Science 133: 729-735.
Guthrie, R. D., 1990. (see below)
Kurtén, B., 1986. (see below)
Weber, C. G., 1980. (see below)
As regards the flesh and vegetation still being in an editable state.
E. W. Pfizenmayer was one of the scientist who recovered and studied the Berezovka mammoth: borrowing a quote from the book that was publish online
Baron E. Von Toll, the well-known geological explore of Arctic Siberia, who perished while leading the Russian expedition in 1903, had covered in 1890 most of the sites of previous finds of mammoth and rhinoceros bodies in carrying out his professional investigations. In doing so he had established that the mammoth found by Adams in 1799 buried at the mouth of the Lena in a crevice of a cliff from 200 to 260 feet high, and sent by him to St. Petersburg, had been frozen in a bank of diluvial ice on the slope of the river. This ice bank was not (as Adams believed and stated in his description of the site of the find) the remains of the old drift-ice whose crevices had been filled with mud. The fissures in the bank of diluvial ice on the Lena, which was far bigger than ours, had, according to Toll's findings, gradually filled with earth from the top downwards, and its upper surface covered with alluvial soil to such an extent that a fair number of the tundra plants were able to take root on it.
"Toll concluded that this particular Siberian ice was in no case recent, but was the remains of diluvial inland ice, which once covered the whole world, and then was gradually overlaid with earth, surviving to this day in the Arctic regions in ice-banks of varying extent.
"Our investigations confirmed his opinion. They proved that the animal had been preserved in the same way as Adams's mammoth, according to Toll, had been. In both cases the bodies had been embedded in fissures of the diluvial inland ice. Then when the temperature fell the mud disappeared and the ice in which they were fast frozen had kept them, complete with their soft parts, in a state a preservation through the ages.
"Before I arrived at the site, Herz had partially dug away the hill of earth round the body, and so both the forefeet and the hind feet were exposed. These lay under the body so that it rested on them. When one looked at the body one had the impression that it must have suddenly fallen into an unexpected fissure in the ice, which it probably came across in its wanderings, and which may have been covered with a layer of plant-bearing mould. After its fall the unlucky animal must have tried to get out of its hopeless position, for the right forefoot was doubled up and the left stretched forward as if it had struggled to rise. But its strength had apparently not been up to it, for when we dug it out still farther we found that in its fall it had not only broken several bones, but had been almost completely buried by the falls of earth which tumbled in on it, so that it had suffocated.
"Its death must have occurred very quickly after its fall, for we found half-chewed food still in its mouth, between the back teeth and on its tongue, which was in good preservation. The food consisted of leaves and grasses, some of the later carrying seeds. We could tell from these that the mammoth must have come to its miserable end in the autumn."
In contracts i see the AIG site shows no references and rather just claims from these self titles Mr Ice Age, and of course the Dr. Dino ( Kent hovind). But all face the same problem, they publish no science journals of their claims they publish direct to the public and play for the emotion/faith vote. The question is why do they not publish their work, the reason is their is no work.
Even the infamous Dr. Behe has never published a science journal of his claims of IC, but has published on non- ID related topics. When these so called scientists deliberately avoid a system which is set up to reduce the amount of fraudulent idea being adopted, you have question their motives. Yes the peer review isn't perfect. But i was was sent this picture, whihc i think is appreciate.
Regards
steve
wherehasmyhairgone

I also want to move the point back to the water canopy, it has been suggested that the flood, was only part of the known world at the time, apparently making it more viable, and that 'every mountain top covered' could refer to local ranges only.
SO working on that basis That would still require a flood depth of 5Km assume that mount Ararat would be covered by the at least 15 cubits.
Now the more popular vapour canopy has been dismissed here by JCannon as being a ice canopy existing in orbit. the problem with an ice canopy is that it would exist in a similar orbit to how Saturn rings exist, now inventing a miracle in biblical proportion to shift this ring or even globe of ice out of orbit would result in not rain hitting the earth but steam, This would be caused by the gravitational potential of this amount of ice, and if you were to make the ice ring into a ice globe you will just produce more stream, so noah's flood would have been a global steam bath, not a lot of use with an ark.
The vapour canopy as suggested and taught by the WTS, fails completely at every turn. However i read a very interesting comment that if the water canopy did exist then this would have certainly made carbon14 dating incorrect. But examine the evidence of a vapour canopy and their are much bigger problem for the canopy to exist in the fist place, let alone be released.
For Noah to have lived in a canopy environment as suggested by the WTS, the atmospheric pressure would have been the equivalent to being 9km under water. this can be worked out from fairly similar calculation.
SO here are some figures for the canopy support brigade
Just 12 inches globally held in the atmosphere of rain would increase the earth surface beyond boiling point, in fact just 4 inches would bring the earth surface temp to over 144oF . http://home.entouch.net/dmd/canopy.htm
Atmospheric pressure with a canopy of vapour require to flood the earth would take earths current 15psi pressure to 970psi, and that a very bad headache.
The problem is the canopy theory holds no water! ;-)

Flood of Gilgamesh written long before Noahs flood. Look at how simular!!

References:

Share this