Hakai Magazine, an ancient flood

[SteveB]

In moseying through the news a few minutes ago, I saw an article from The Atlantic. An american news source, with a long and industrious history.
It linked to a not so old magazine, called- HAkai.
I decided to look into it, because the article I was reading struck me as bizarre for the Atlantic.

About Us | Hakai Magazine

Hakai Magazine explores science, society, and the environment in compelling narratives that highlight coastal life and phenomena.

hakaimagazine.com

The article, talks about a time when the island- Jersey- off the coast of France was a quick walk across a river. Apparently, the island is a distance off the coast of France, and by no means a quick walk.

Memories of the End of the Last Ice Age, from Those Who Were There | Hakai Magazine

As Earth’s ice melts once more, heed these ancient tales of land lost to the sea.

hakaimagazine.com

It wasn’t long after Henry David Inglis arrived on the island of Jersey, just northwest of France, that he heard the old story. Locals eagerly told the 19th-century Scottish travel writer how, in a bygone age, their island was much more substantial, and that folks used to walk to the French coast. The only hurdle to their journey was a river—one easily crossed using a short bridge.

“Pah!” Inglis presumably scoffed as he looked out across 22 kilometers of shimmering blue sea—because he went on to write in his 1832 book about the region that this was “an assertion too ridiculous to merit examination.” Another writer, Jean Poingdestre, around 150 years earlier, had been similarly unmoved by the tale. No one could have trod from Jersey to Normandy, he withered, “vnlesse it were before the Flood,” referring to the Old Testament cataclysm.

Yet, there had been a flood. A big one. Between roughly 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, massive flooding caused by melting glaciers raised sea levels around Europe. That flooding is what eventually turned Jersey into an island.

The rest of the article is of equal interest.

Rather than being a ridiculous claim not worthy of examination, perhaps the old story was true—a whisper from ancestors who really did walk through now-vanished lands. A whisper that has echoed across millennia.

That’s exactly what geologist Patrick Nunn and historian Margaret Cook at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia have proposed in a recent paper.

 

[The Pixie]

In moseying through the news a few minutes ago, I saw an article from The Atlantic. An american news source, with a long and industrious history.
It linked to a not so old magazine, called- HAkai.
I decided to look into it, because the article I was reading struck me as bizarre for the Atlantic.

The article, talks about a time when the island- Jersey- off the coast of France was a quick walk across a river. Apparently, the island is a distance off the coast of France, and by no means a quick walk.
...

At one time the entire British Isles were part of mainland Europe. Sea levels rose between 10,000 BC and 8,000 BC, and the low-lying areas became covered, and we ended up with the set of islands seen today. This has been known about for decades, though, as the article above shows, the details are still emerging.

Study Rewrites History of Ancient Land Bridge Between Britain and Europe

New research suggests that climate change, not a tsunami, doomed the now-submerged territory of Doggerland

www.smithsonianmag.com

There is no suggestion the land was ever entirely covered, so this in no way supports the claims of a Global Flood.

However, it does explain why flood myths are so common across the globe. They are not referencing the Global Flood of the Bible, but rising sea levels when the glaciers melted.

 

[SteveB]

At one time the entire British Isles were part of mainland Europe. Sea levels rose between 10,000 BC and 8,000 BC, and the low-lying areas became covered, and we ended up with the set of islands seen today. This has been known about for decades, though, as the article above shows, the details are still emerging.

Study Rewrites History of Ancient Land Bridge Between Britain and Europe

New research suggests that climate change, not a tsunami, doomed the now-submerged territory of Doggerland

www.smithsonianmag.com

There is no suggestion the land was ever entirely covered, so this in no way supports the claims of a Global Flood.

However, it does explain why flood myths are so common across the globe. They are not referencing the Global Flood of the Bible, but rising sea levels when the glaciers melted.

🤣

Apparently you're missing the idea that the flood was the result of a massive climate change event.

It didn't hurt that there was also a massive geological cataclysm that completely changed the topography of the world.

Gen 7:11-12 WEB 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the sky’s windows opened. 12 It rained on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Sounds like climate change to me.

 

[The Pixie]

🤣

Apparently you're missing the idea that the flood was the result of a massive climate change event.

And yet I said "rising sea levels when the glaciers melted", so in fact I did not miss that. You just failed to realise it.

It didn't hurt that there was also a massive geological cataclysm that completely changed the topography of the world.

Gen 7:11-12 WEB 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the sky’s windows opened. 12 It rained on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Sounds like climate change to me.

Right. And not a global flood that covered the entire world.

 

[SteveB]

And yet I said "rising sea levels when the glaciers melted", so in fact I did not miss that. You just failed to realise it.

You're assuming that the ice age came before the flood.

According to the biblical narrative, the world was created and thrived in a rich environment.

Depending on the source, the dramatic changes brought about by 40 days and nights of rain, and a massive flood changed the climate so completely that it cooled the atmosphere by several degrees, and it resulted in a winter of dramatic proportions.
Further resulting in an ice age.

Right. And not a global flood that covered the entire world.

That is your belief...

 

[The Pixie]

You're assuming that the ice age came before the flood.

I am saying that that is the mainstream position, as used the the articles you cited. The article is about glaciers melting as the ice age ends, and sea levels rising.

So yes, I am assuming the ice age came before the flood, as are the article.

According to the biblical narrative, the world was created and thrived in a rich environment.

Depending on the source, the dramatic changes brought about by 40 days and nights of rain, and a massive flood changed the climate so completely that it cooled the atmosphere by several degrees, and it resulted in a winter of dramatic proportions.
Further resulting in an ice age.

So very different to what those articles are talking about.

That is your belief...

Right, because that is what the evidence points to. Those articles are a great example. They are evidence of a ice age and water rising since that time, not of a global flood that entirely covering everything, followed by an ice age.

 

[SteveB]

I am saying that that is the mainstream position, as used the the articles you cited.

oh, well then.... since it's the "mainstream" position, I guess that means it's the definitive proof that no other position is possible!
It's a good thing that the "settled science" of the 30's and 40's of the twentieth century was further researched, and they were able to determine that lobotomizing people wasn't the most effective means of solving mental health problems.

The article is about glaciers melting as the ice age ends, and sea levels rising.

So yes, I am assuming the ice age came before the flood, as are the article.


So very different to what those articles are talking about.


Right, because that is what the evidence points to. Those articles are a great example. They are evidence of a ice age and water rising since that time, not of a global flood that entirely covering everything, followed by an ice age.

It's a good thing that further research is taking place.... God forbid that your unbelief would be the end all, be all, of all scientific understanding. 🤔🤣🤷‍♂️

 

[The Pixie]

oh, well then.... since it's the "mainstream" position, I guess that means it's the definitive proof that no other position is possible!

I never said that. I was just pointing out that the articles you cite support my position, not yours.

It's a good thing that the "settled science" of the 30's and 40's of the twentieth century was further researched, and they were able to determine that lobotomizing people wasn't the most effective means of solving mental health problems.

It is. Just as it is a good thing most scientists have now rejected the Global Flood, and now see that too as being just more nonsense.

It's a good thing that further research is taking place.... God forbid that your unbelief would be the end all, be all, of all scientific understanding. 🤔🤣🤷‍♂️

What is your point Steve?

Is this a "jam tomorrow" thing where you just hope that one day soon the evidence will magically change and show a global flood actually happened? It is not going to happen. The Global Flood had its day as mainstream science. It got thrown out because of the evidence was just too strong. And that was about two centuries ago. We have far far more evidence now, and it all supports mainstream science.

That is why it is mainstream science.

 

[SteveB]

I never said that. I was just pointing out that the articles you cite support my position, not yours.

And I'm just pointing out that your bias is clearly the only truth that matters to you, so the actual truth can't possibly be true, unless you approve it.
It's known as--- gosh! I guess you d-man, and all knowledge lies with you in your infinite knowledge and wisdom.

It is. Just as it is a good thing most scientists have now rejected the Global Flood, and now see that too as being just more nonsense.


What is your point Steve?

Is this a "jam tomorrow" thing where you just hope that one day soon the evidence will magically change and show a global flood actually happened? It is not going to happen. The Global Flood had its day as mainstream science. It got thrown out because of the evidence was just too strong. And that was about two centuries ago. We have far far more evidence now, and it all supports mainstream science.

That is why it is mainstream science.

Mainstream....

Ok. Let's talk about mainstream science.

In the 1930's, it was a mainstream medical practice to remove, or sever parts of the human brain. Because..... well... people were uncomfortable with other people who didn't fit their preconceived notions and biases of how people SHOULD behave....

The History of Lobotomy

Experts once viewed this controversial procedure as a cure-all for certain mental health conditions.

psychcentral.com

Lobotomy: Definition, Procedure & History

Lobotomies have always been controversial, but they were widely performed for more than two decades to treat mental illness.

www.livescience.com

So, if mainstream science says so, it must be the truth, and best practice, regardless of what the actual truth is...

All in Their Heads: When Faces Made the Case for Lobotomy

Prefrontal Lobotomy in the Treatment of Mental Disorders, 1942By Walter Freeman and James W. WattsNational Library of Medicine #8800490A If you were mentally ill back in the late 1930s to late 1950…

infocus.nlm.nih.gov

Just as long as you believe you're right, right?

 

[The Pixie]

And I'm just pointing out that your bias is clearly the only truth that matters to you, so the actual truth can't possibly be true, unless you approve it.
It's known as--- gosh! I guess you d-man, and all knowledge lies with you in your infinite knowledge and wisdom.

What are you taking about Steve?

Did you read the articles you linked to in your OP? They support my "bias" and refute your claims. The problem you have is that the evidence supports what I say, and so we get all this bluster and posturing.

Mainstream....

Ok. Let's talk about mainstream science.

Sure, while we communicate across the world with the wonders it has produced.

I am not saying mainstream science is always right, it is not. But a claim is mainstream science because that is what the evidence points to. And right now, the vast majority of evidence points to no Global Flood.

Just as long as you believe you're right, right?

Got to be honest, that sounds more like you right now.

Nothing in your post addresses the issue. If you think you are right about the global flood, quote the bits from your article that support it. For contrast, here is a quote that supports my position of rising sea levels as the ice age ends.

In their work, the pair describe colorful legends from northern Europe and Australia that depict rising waters, peninsulas becoming islands, and receding coastlines during that period of deglaciation thousands of years ago. ​

 

[The Pixie]

And I'm just pointing out that your bias is clearly the only truth that matters to you, so the actual truth can't possibly be true, unless you approve it.
It's known as--- gosh! I guess you d-man, and all knowledge lies with you in your infinite knowledge and wisdom.
...
Just as long as you believe you're right, right?

In fact, as I re-read your OP, I see you quoted the article:

Yet, there had been a flood. A big one. Between roughly 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, massive flooding caused by melting glaciers raised sea levels around Europe. That flooding is what eventually turned Jersey into an island.​

Even the bit you quoted in the OP supports my position and refutes yours!

 

[SteveB]

What are you taking about Steve?

Did you read the articles you linked to in your OP? They support my "bias" and refute your claims. The problem you have is that the evidence supports what I say, and so we get all this bluster and posturing.


Sure, while we communicate across the world with the wonders it has produced.

I am not saying mainstream science is always right, it is not. But a claim is mainstream science because that is what the evidence points to. And right now, the vast majority of evidence points to no Global Flood.


Got to be honest, that sounds more like you right now.

Nothing in your post addresses the issue. If you think you are right about the global flood, quote the bits from your article that support it. For contrast, here is a quote that supports my position of rising sea levels as the ice age ends.

In their work, the pair describe colorful legends from northern Europe and Australia that depict rising waters, peninsulas becoming islands, and receding coastlines during that period of deglaciation thousands of years ago. ​

I'm not the one who is having a problem here with ideas that you're working really hard to dismiss.

It's ok that you don't actually want to know the God who created us, and then warned us what would happen if we refused to take him seriously.
It's your life.
You get to choose what you want.
If eternal life doesn't draw you into the truth, if the warnings of misery and agony and anguish don't give you pause, to stop and consider that there's more to this than you're aware of, and apparently unwilling to learn, you'll find out the hard way.

So, congratulations!
You can believe whatever you want.
Have fun with that.

 

[The Pixie]

I'm not the one who is having a problem here with ideas that you're working really hard to dismiss.

It's ok that you don't actually want to know the God who created us, and then warned us what would happen if we refused to take him seriously.
It's your life.
You get to choose what you want.
If eternal life doesn't draw you into the truth, if the warnings of misery and agony and anguish don't give you pause, to stop and consider that there's more to this than you're aware of, and apparently unwilling to learn, you'll find out the hard way.

So, congratulations!
You can believe whatever you want.
Have fun with that.

So you have given up all pretence of having an argument relating to the OP and are back to the usual diatribe.

Sad really. It was your OP, but you seem unable to engage with it at anything beyond the most superficial level. Oh, flooding, I believe in a flood! It must support my world view.

 

[SteveB]

In fact, as I re-read your OP, I see you quoted the article:

Yet, there had been a flood. A big one. Between roughly 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, massive flooding caused by melting glaciers raised sea levels around Europe. That flooding is what eventually turned Jersey into an island.​

Even the bit you quoted in the OP supports my position and refutes yours!

Between ROUGHLY.......
Sounds like science doesn't actually know the timing.

James Ussher used the genealogy of the bible to get us to a date of 4004 BCE.
That means that creation took place 6026 years ago.
The ages, if there were no other timing elements not defined in the bible, place the flood at 6026 - 1654 = 4372.....
Gee...... since there's a ROUGHLY....... in there, I'm thinking that 4372 years ago makes it appear ROUGHLY...... reasonable.

Remember--- you're the one who is going anal here.....

ROUGHLY...... seems to put you in ROUGHLY...... the off scale change that you are ROUGHLY ....... wrong about what you want to be right.

Furthermore, the dating that James Ussher gave us, there's nothing that says he's actually correct.
He's assuming that Adam's age of 130 at the time of Seth's birth is based on his being created, and not when he ate the fruit.

We have no idea how long it took Adam to name all the animals. Eve wasn't created until some point after Adam began to realize that the animals all had mates, but he didn't have anyone who was his mate/equal.

I can't imagine naming hundreds, or thousands of animals/insects/etc..... was a single day, week, or month long process. What was the process by which he determined what they should be named? Did he observe their behavior and then name them?
Rhinoceros and giraffe seem rather curious names for those animals.
Dog, cat, caterpillar, butterfly, etc....

How did he come up with those?
It's a simple matter of how long the naming process took, when his age is based on, and then we can talk about the age of the earth.

It's rather curious that other papers I've posted also give a rough answer to this question of the flood's timing.

In my world history class at the college, my PhD professor said that the civilization of human beings began around 4200 years BCE, plus or minus 200 years.

Sounds like a ROUGHLY...... 6000 years ago.

But, roughly is obviously a problem for you, so you go have fun with yourself.

 

[SteveB]

So you have given up all pretence of having an argument relating to the OP and are back to the usual diatribe.

Sad really. It was your OP, but you seem unable to engage with it at anything beyond the most superficial level. Oh, flooding, I believe in a flood! It must support my world view.

I'm still satisfied with the awareness that YHVH doesn't lie, and since he's the one who gave us the information, and science is playing catch up with reality, I'm thinking that you're trying to figure out how to stick science into the God business, with immutability.

The entire basis of scientific discovery is that when they discover something, they use words like ROUGHLY....., WE THINK....., IT'S BELIEVED....., etc....

Over the past few months, since the JWST has been put into commission, I've been seeing several documents posted on various scientific websites that have been saying things like-- our previous beliefs about this issue are being shown to be completely wrong, or way off in our calculations, etc....

I encourage you to do your own research.

I can't begin to fathom the new discoveries they'll find as time goes on.

But it's pretty clear so far that the former realm of scientific evidence is changing dramatically.

 

[The Pixie]

Between ROUGHLY.......
Sounds like science doesn't actually know the timing.

Why would you expect to know to the exact year when glaciers were melting? I assume you have never done any science at college. For one thing, it is quite a nebulous start and end; think about summer and winter here.

Is this really the best you can do Steve?

This was from the article you were citing as an authority in the OP. Now you realise it supports my position, you want to trash it!

James Ussher used the genealogy of the bible to get us to a date of 4004 BCE.
That means that creation took place 6026 years ago.
The ages, if there were no other timing elements not defined in the bible, place the flood at 6026 - 1654 = 4372.....
Gee...... since there's a ROUGHLY....... in there, I'm thinking that 4372 years ago makes it appear ROUGHLY...... reasonable.

And therefore it must be true?

Here is a great PDF by Answer In Genesis that gives us the full time line, complete with ice age:

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v8/n2/ice-age-map.pdf

So we have the Flood in 2350 BC, then three generations to the Tower of Babel, about 2250 BC, and the start of the Ice Age, which then lasts six generations, to about 2000 BC, when Abram was born. That is a very quick Ice Age. Back in reality, the last ice age started 2.5 million years ago, and is still going (we are in a warmer, interglacial period).

What is fascinating is how fast stuff happens in this time line.

Mastodons first appear after two generations (around 2285 BC I guess), evolved from the elephant-kind on the ark, and woolly mammoths just two generations after that. That is some fast evolution!

Just think about the numbers involved here. Elephants are long-lived, so we can say a generation is about the same as it is for us (and that is being generous to the theory). There were two on the ark. How many kids did those two elephant-kind have? After two generations, when the mastodons have evolved, there will only be twenty to thirty elephant-kind altogether.

Just two generations later and woolly mammoths appear (by now there might be 600 or so elephant-kind all across the globe, now divided into numerous species), and one generation after that they have made it to North America.

Two to three generations after that, and the mammoths seem to have gone. They were around just four generations, and then extinct.

However, on this page AiG assure us:

Millions of woolly mammoths roamed the grassy steppes of Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon by the middle of the Ice Age.​

The middle of the Ice Age is just two generations after the woolly mammoth appeared, and yet already there were millions of them. These things must breed like flies! It is laughable when you think about it.

But of course creationists do not think about it.

Remember--- you're the one who is going anal here.....

ROUGHLY...... seems to put you in ROUGHLY...... the off scale change that you are ROUGHLY ....... wrong about what you want to be right.

What is this about? Do you think I object to the word "roughly"? The important bit was the bit in bold, in huge letters.

"massive flooding caused by melting glaciers raised sea levels around Europe"​

It is nothing about "roughly", it is all about that the article is talking about sea levels rising as glaciers melt, which is my position, not yours.

 

[SteveB]

Why would you expect to know to the exact year when glaciers were melting? I assume you have never done any science at college. For one thing, it is quite a nebulous start and end; think about summer and winter here.

🤦‍♂️

oh how I wish you could see me laughing right now at the sheer irony of your comments.....

ROUGHLY........ means ROUGHLY..... they have no idea when the years were, and are stabbing in the dark..... a 10,000 year range? Seriously?
The flood as described in the bible was done in under 200 days (6-1/2 months), from start to finish, and they're struggling with 10,000 YEARS?

Is this really the best you can do Steve?

It's a simple matter of choice Pix.
You've spent years looking for loopholes to exclude you from being able to know God, and spend eternity in paradise..... I have to say--- you're quite impressive. I don't think I've ever met a group of people so entirely dedicated to refusing to receive a simple gift.
So, at this point, there's no "best" I can do.
According to the bible--- the VERY BEST I can do is--- Jesus died to save you, and give you eternal life. He rose again 3 days later. Do you want eternal life?

You've previously made it clear you don't think it applies to you.

So, we're working our way down the pole.

And based on previous comments from you, while I realize that you think this is a joke, YHVH says that he's chosen the foolishness of preaching the cross of Jesus to save those who believe him.
When God says he's chosen something, it's because it's the most efficient, effective, and best possible means of achieving his purposes/goals.

He said that the preaching of the cross is wiser than the highest possible wisdom of men.
He further stated that the weakness of preaching the gospel is stronger than the sum total collection of all the human strength of humanity.

So..... while I understand that you think what I've been saying is a piss poor joke, you're simply showing me that what YHVH has chosen is true, and correct.

This was from the article you were citing as an authority in the OP. Now you realise it supports my position, you want to trash it!

No.
I recognize that no matter what, you will do whatever you think you can to force fit the truth onto your

And therefore it must be true?

Here is a great PDF by Answer In Genesis that gives us the full time line, complete with ice age:

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v8/n2/ice-age-map.pdf

So we have the Flood in 2350 BC, then three generations to the Tower of Babel, about 2250 BC, and the start of the Ice Age, which then lasts six generations, to about 2000 BC, when Abram was born. That is a very quick Ice Age. Back in reality, the last ice age started 2.5 million years ago, and is still going (we are in a warmer, interglacial period).

What is fascinating is how fast stuff happens in this time line.

Mastodons first appear after two generations (around 2285 BC I guess), evolved from the elephant-kind on the ark, and woolly mammoths just two generations after that. That is some fast evolution!

Just think about the numbers involved here. Elephants are long-lived, so we can say a generation is about the same as it is for us (and that is being generous to the theory). There were two on the ark. How many kids did those two elephant-kind have? After two generations, when the mastodons have evolved, there will only be twenty to thirty elephant-kind altogether.

Just two generations later and woolly mammoths appear (by now there might be 600 or so elephant-kind all across the globe, now divided into numerous species), and one generation after that they have made it to North America.

Two to three generations after that, and the mammoths seem to have gone. They were around just four generations, and then extinct.

However, on this page AiG assure us:

Millions of woolly mammoths roamed the grassy steppes of Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon by the middle of the Ice Age.​

The middle of the Ice Age is just two generations after the woolly mammoth appeared, and yet already there were millions of them. These things must breed like flies! It is laughable when you think about it.

But of course creationists do not think about it.


What is this about? Do you think I object to the word "roughly"? The important bit was the bit in bold, in huge letters.

"massive flooding caused by melting glaciers raised sea levels around Europe"​

It is nothing about "roughly", it is all about that the article is talking about sea levels rising as glaciers melt, which is my position, not yours.

Did it ever occur to you that they need a source of water to justify the massive, inexplicable volume of water?
Because they reject the bible, they rejected the only available source. The bible plainly states--- the fountains of the deep were broken up.
The fountains of the deep is supported by the several oceans of water stored in the mantle.

Keep stroking it though. I'm sure if you keep telling yourself what you want to believe, it'll eventually become true.

 

[The Pixie]

🤦‍♂️

oh how I wish you could see me laughing right now at the sheer irony of your comments.....

ROUGHLY........ means ROUGHLY..... they have no idea when the years were, and are stabbing in the dark..... a 10,000 year range? Seriously?
The flood as described in the bible was done in under 200 days (6-1/2 months), from start to finish, and they're struggling with 10,000 YEARS?

Do you think this makes your scenario any more likely?

Clearly they do have some idea when the years were. Furthermore, the range of 10,000 years is how long the process took, not the uncertainty. It started roughly 15,000 years ago, and ended roughly 5000 years ago.

It's a simple matter of choice Pix.

No, Steve, it is a matter of what is true.

The evidence points to an ice age long long ago, and sea levels rising over the course of 10,000 years since then as the glaciers melted. That is why the article you were citing as an authority says:

"massive flooding caused by melting glaciers raised sea levels around Europe"​

You clearly did not bother to read the article, and even now are confused about what it is saying.

You've spent years looking for loopholes to ...

And you have spent years ignoring reality, and just preaching about hell.

Consequently, I do not believe anything you say. I am not saying you are a liar, I am sure you are sincere. But so often you get stuff wrong, such as here where you thought thye article supports a global flood, and then later when you thought the range was the uncertainty.

And to confound the problem, you are clearly unable to ever admit you are wrong. These are basic things I can check for myself. Why would I trust anything you say on topics I cannot check for myself. You say Jesus was resurrected, but giving your track record, it seems pretty likely you are wrong. Indeed, it seems pretty likely someone has already proved you wrong and you just refuse to admit it.

No.
I recognize that no matter what, you will do whatever you think you can to force fit the truth onto your

And yet the article YOU found supports my position and refutes yours. Why is that? I think it is because I am right and you are wrong.

Did it ever occur to you that they need a source of water to justify the massive, inexplicable volume of water?

Absolutely. In the Biblical cosmology that comes from the Waters Above and the Water Below. In reality, there is no such thing, of course; we live on a more-or-less spherical planet in a vacuum.

Because they reject the bible, they rejected the only available source. The bible plainly states--- the fountains of the deep were broken up.
The fountains of the deep is supported by the several oceans of water stored in the mantle.

No it is not. The water in the mantle is chemically bonded to the rocks. It is not water you can actually access.

Again your lack of science has let you down.

Keep stroking it though. I'm sure if you keep telling yourself what you want to believe, it'll eventually become true.

And of course that article you found. That is also telling me what I want to believe. And it is already mainstream science.

I am in the fortunate position of wanting to know what is true, so the evidence supports me. You, not so much.

 

[SteveB]

Do you think this makes your scenario any more likely?

It's not MY scenario.
It's the scenario attested to by YHVH, and written for us, by Moses.
As I stated, you can indeed believe whatever you want. It's your life. And your death.
Jesus is inviting you to come follow him, and he'll give you eternal life.
If so great a gift is that odious to you, you'll receive exactly what you want. An eternity separated from YHVH.

Clearly they do have some idea when the years were. Furthermore, the range of 10,000 years is how long the process took, not the uncertainty. It started roughly 15,000 years ago, and ended roughly 5000 years ago.

Okee dokee....

No, Steve, it is a matter of what is true.

Exactly! Science is the craft of investigation.

You've been repeatedly explained this several times before.

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

sciencecouncil.org

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.​

You appear to treat science as a religion that can't possibly be wrong.

The evidence points to an ice age long long ago, and sea levels rising over the course of 10,000 years since then as the glaciers melted. That is why the article you were citing as an authority says:

"massive flooding caused by melting glaciers raised sea levels around Europe"​

You clearly did not bother to read the article, and even now are confused about what it is saying.

🤭
Actually, you want me to have not read the article.
What you see as causing the flood, I see as resulting in the subsequent ice age.
It's a simple matter of timing.

And you have spent years ignoring reality, and just preaching about hell.

🤣🤣🤣
Well, I'm sure that would help you justify your refusal to engage YHVH on his terms.
Hell is the consequence of sin.
You don't have to do anything. Just keep living as you want. You'll grow old, and one day die, and then you'll be in for the ultimate rude awakening.

Or, you can come to Jesus, and learn the truth regarding reality and learn how great life truly is.

Consequently, I do not believe anything you say.

You never have. That was obvious from the very first time we conversed, several years ago.
You're not telling me anything I wasn't already aware of.

I am not saying you are a liar, I am sure you are sincere.

It's not about sincerity. It's about truth.

But so often you get stuff wrong, such as here where you thought thye article supports a global flood, and then later when you thought the range was the uncertainty.

Sounds like you're trying to figure out how to make it easier to disregard the fact that it's describing massive flooding in the region it's describing.

I'm not having any problems with the awareness that it's describing how Europe flooded.
Another article described how the Australian region also experienced great flooding.
And other resources have described how there were other massive flooding in their regions.
Add enough of those papers together and a rather curious picture begins to appear....
A global flood arises from the descriptions.
So, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, you don't actually want to know the truth. You want a set of ideas you can control, and confine to a neat, tidy, nice box that doesn't affirm the reality of YHVH and the bible.

And to confound the problem, you are clearly unable to ever admit you are wrong.

Looks to me like you need me to be wrong so you can feel better about dying in your sin, separated from God.

These are basic things I can check for myself.

Yep. Yet you continue to ignore what doesn't conform to your beliefs. You force fit them, and rail on me to justify yourself.

Why would I trust anything you say on topics I cannot check for myself. You say Jesus was resurrected, but giving your track record, it seems pretty likely you are wrong.

Actually, you can check the resurrection for yourself.
There are numerous authors who have written quite extensively about it.
Lawyers, retired cops, legal journalists, religious philosophers, linguists,....

You can engage YHVH himself. He didn't have any problems whatsoever with responding to my questions.
Nor has he had any problems whatsoever with engaging others who took him seriously.

The interesting thing is..... he actually invites us to engage him, and "bring your strong case to" him. Isaiah 41:21.

Jesus clearly had no problem with our questions.

Ask, and you shall receive.
Seek, and you shall find.
Knock and the door shall be opened to you.

Considering that the resurrection of Jesus is the single most important event in human history, do you actually think that it's not verifiable?

Indeed, it seems pretty likely someone has already proved you wrong and you just refuse to admit it.

What you have "proven" is your biases. You have proven your preconceptions and your beliefs.

And yet the article YOU found supports my position and refutes yours. Why is that? I think it is because I am right and you are wrong.

You think...... sounds like you're admitting to having a lot of preconceptions and biases.

Absolutely. In the Biblical cosmology that comes from the Waters Above and the Water Below. In reality, there is no such thing, of course; we live on a more-or-less spherical planet in a vacuum.

Excellent demonstration of preconceptions and biases. Thank you for clarifying my point.

If the language used is beyond your awareness and experience, then it can't possibly be correct.

No it is not. The water in the mantle is chemically bonded to the rocks. It is not water you can actually access.

Not now. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a point in history where the water wasn't released through geologic processes and escaped through massive eruptions in the earth.
We recently saw something similar in the Pacific Ocean, out by Tonga. A volcanic eruption released several tons of water vapor into the atmosphere. The climate change crowd has been freaking out about it discussing the consequences for climate change.

Tonga Eruption Blasted Unprecedented Amount of Water Into Stratosphere

The huge amount of water vapor hurled into the atmosphere, as detected by NASA’s Microwave Limb Sounder, could end up temporarily warming Earth’s surface.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

What I find amusing is that scientists are piecing together a series of smaller groups of data, which are building a larger scale picture.

I'll be the first to agree that without the biblical context of a massive global climate change event that resulted in a humongous flood, each of these individual pieces would remain disconnected pieces.

Again your lack of science has let you down.

I'm not the one who is having a problem here with the puzzle.
And I do see it as a puzzle. One you believe doesn't have a picture to know what it will show in the end.

The bible is the picture.

And of course that article you found. That is also telling me what I want to believe. And it is already mainstream science.

Mainstream what? A collection of opinions on what they think happened? Sounds like you're saying that opinions of the past, without context are more accurate than a statement about the past, directly from the sole eyewitness and then explained in simple terms to his friend.
Which further demonstrates that you resent eyewitness accounts and prefer guesses, and speculation, based on content removed out of the original context.

I am in the fortunate position of wanting to know what is true, so the evidence supports me. You, not so much.

If that was actually the case, and true, then you would be engaging Jesus instead of trying to figure out how to appear justified by your fellow humans.

So, since you keep claiming that, stop talking to people on this forum and go have a sitdown discussion with YHVH.

 

[The Pixie]

It's not MY scenario.

It is the one you are advocating.

It's the scenario attested to by YHVH, and written for us, by Moses.

Or at least, that is your faith position. Given the writings attributed to Moses include his own death, I have always been dubious of that.

As I stated, you can indeed believe whatever you want. It's your life. And your death.
Jesus is inviting you to come follow him, and he'll give you eternal life.
If so great a gift is that odious to you, you'll receive exactly what you want. An eternity separated from YHVH.

I am going to believe what the evidence points to. Not what some blowhard on the internet is trying to bully me into believing.

Okee dokee....

Exactly! Science is the craft of investigation.

You've been repeatedly explained this several times before.

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

sciencecouncil.org

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.​

You appear to treat science as a religion that can't possibly be wrong.

Apologies if I gave that impression; it was certainly not meant that way. Science can be wrong. But it has an extremely good track record, and our ability to discuss it over such huge distances is testament to that. That technology works is very good evidence that science is, for the most part, right.

Actually, you want me to have not read the article.

It certainly helps my arguments that you have not.

What you see as causing the flood, I see as resulting in the subsequent ice age.
It's a simple matter of timing.

Okay. But the timing in the article says it was glaciers first, and rising sea levels later.

Which you would know if you had bothered to read the article.

Well, I'm sure that would help you justify your refusal to engage YHVH on his terms.
Hell is the consequence of sin.

And yet the Bible tells us God is perfectly capable of forgiving sin and preventing a person from going to hell, if God chooses to.

As far as I can see, hell is just God inflicting intense pain to punish those who reject him. Or torture them in other words.

Sounds like you're trying to figure out how to make it easier to disregard the fact that it's describing massive flooding in the region it's describing.

I'm not having any problems with the awareness that it's describing how Europe flooded.
Another article described how the Australian region also experienced great flooding.
And other resources have described how there were other massive flooding in their regions.
Add enough of those papers together and a rather curious picture begins to appear....
A global flood arises from the descriptions.
So, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, you don't actually want to know the truth. You want a set of ideas you can control, and confine to a neat, tidy, nice box that doesn't affirm the reality of YHVH and the bible.

What the article describes is:

• a rise in sea levels up to their present level
• that rise happened due to glaciers melting
• it occurring very slowing over about 10,000 years

What the Bible describes.

• a rise in sea levels to cover all mountains
• that rise happened prior to the ice age
• it occurring very rapidly over just 40 days

You are pretending the article say things it does not, presumably because you failed to read it and just assumed it must agree with your worldview.

Actually, you can check the resurrection for yourself.
There are numerous authors who have written quite extensively about it.
Lawyers, retired cops, legal journalists, religious philosophers, linguists,....

None of whom were there! All they have to go on is the same accounts that you and I do. And if I want an in depth understanding of those accounts, I will go to Biblical scholars (such as Helmut Koester or Ray Brown), and not to lawyers, retired cops, legal journalists, religious philosophers, linguists.

Seriously, why would anyone think a retired cop is an expert in the New Testament?

Not now. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a point in history where the water wasn't released through geologic processes and escaped through massive eruptions in the earth.
We recently saw something similar in the Pacific Ocean, out by Tonga. A volcanic eruption released several tons of water vapor into the atmosphere. The climate change crowd has been freaking out about it discussing the consequences for climate change.

Tonga Eruption Blasted Unprecedented Amount of Water Into Stratosphere

The huge amount of water vapor hurled into the atmosphere, as detected by NASA’s Microwave Limb Sounder, could end up temporarily warming Earth’s surface.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

I have no idea what you point is here.

Do you?

What I find amusing is that scientists are piecing together a series of smaller groups of data, which are building a larger scale picture.

If you find that amusing, you have a bizarre sense of humour.

I'll be the first to agree that without the biblical context of a massive global climate change event that resulted in a humongous flood, each of these individual pieces would remain disconnected pieces.

Sure. But if you have already decided the Global Flood must necessarily be true, and carefully cherry-pick the data, or just assume articles agree with you without bothering to read them, well, by golly, it looks like there really was a flood.

Mainstream what? A collection of opinions on what they think happened? Sounds like you're saying that opinions of the past, without context are more accurate than a statement about the past, directly from the sole eyewitness and then explained in simple terms to his friend.
Which further demonstrates that you resent eyewitness accounts and prefer guesses, and speculation, based on content removed out of the original context.

Again, no idea what your point is here.