Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I think Noah's "erets" flood occurred around 9,000 - 12,000 B.C. and ended in Turkey.
Trust the Bible DOT com ^ | 2002 | Wayne McKellips

Posted on 04/19/2002 12:51:23 PM PDT by vannrox

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2002 12:51:24 PM PDT by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Mars shows evidence of such tidal attraction. The rest is way over on the speculation side of the scale.
2 posted on 04/19/2002 12:57:08 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Is this Wayne McKellips guy on CRACK? I do believe that a Great Flood occurred sometime in the past. There is credible archeological evidence in the Black Sea area. But to claim that Mars caused the flood??? There is no way that Mars was ever in Earth orbit or anywhere near the Earth during the solar system's 4 to 5 billion year history, especially this recently. Just imagine how bright it would be in the night sky. And it would cause more than tidal floods.
3 posted on 04/19/2002 1:03:25 PM PDT by TomT in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
My general response to the "whole earth vs just the neighborhood" flood question is, if it was just the neighborhood, why didn't God just tell Noah to move?

After glancing at the rest, I have to say that I don't quite follow his point.

4 posted on 04/19/2002 1:03:48 PM PDT by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: T. P. Pole
God did tell Noah to move - on an Ark. Remember, they didn't have planes in those days, so they couldn't get very far.
6 posted on 04/19/2002 1:17:09 PM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: T. P. Pole
...why didn't God just tell Noah to move?

LOL...that sure was a lot of work building the ark and loading all those animals if the flood was really only a lake!

7 posted on 04/19/2002 1:19:07 PM PDT by E=MC<sup>2</sup>
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Wow, never seen such a steaming pile of BS. This guy should try doing the math before posting his theory. But that would disprove his wacked-out ideas...too bad. I love it when these wackos attempt to prove their theory, not by just showing us the simple proof for it, but by listing a whole lotta "facts", most of which are completely irrelevant, in the hope that we'll be so overwhelmed by his intellectual fortitude that we'll buy into his theory.
8 posted on 04/19/2002 1:23:08 PM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
It is easier for God to flood the whole earth, just like He said, than it would be for Him to lie about what He did. Nothing is impossible to God, except to lie to His people.
9 posted on 04/19/2002 1:40:14 PM PDT by mcsparkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcsparkie
Nothing is impossible to God, except to lie to His people

When did the All-knowing, All-powerful, Limitless and Illimitable God become unable to do something that even His creations do every day?

10 posted on 04/19/2002 2:10:29 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TomT in NJ
There is the theory of planet X, which is probably [if it exists] a brown-dwarf companion of the sun, which would make ours a binary system. As the theory goes, this brown dwarf has a very elliptical orbit around the sun, with a period of about 3600 yrs. At one of the close encounters with the solar system is supposedly collided with the alleged parent planet of Mars, which if the theory is true, was at one time a moon and not a planet.

The collision produced what is known currently as the astroid belt between the orbits of earth and Mars. Interestingly, recently it has been found that Mars had ice only on one side of it, such as one might expect if it were in a lunar-type orbit around the parent planet, always presenting the same "face" towards the mother planet.

At any rate, it is thought by some, that Mars was thrown into a very close proximity orbit to earth, perhaps even being trapped in the earth's gravitational field, thus causing periodic catastrophic tidal effects.

It all seems quite plausible, especially considering that Mars was known in ancient times as the planet [or god] of war.

Is this true? Who knows.

Brian.

11 posted on 04/19/2002 3:01:31 PM PDT by bzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Oooooooooo....you are gonna get FLAMED for this!!!!

If it'll make you feel any better, I've always been a proponent of a localized (to that region), massive, catastrophic flood which caused unthinkable devastation to the local inhabitants' known world.

The known world was extremely small then.

There are two theories that I personally lean toward: either a massive, post Ice Age "flush" as happened in North America, most likely combined with a catastrophic vulcanic eruption.

Of course, my reasoning is flawed for believing in Ice Ages to begin with. <G>

12 posted on 04/19/2002 3:40:18 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bzrd
"At any rate, it is thought by some, that Mars was thrown into a very close proximity orbit to earth, perhaps even being trapped in the earth's gravitational field, thus causing periodic catastrophic tidal effects."

I guess I should have read the entir article before posting my first reply. I should've guessed that it wouldn't be what I'd hoped.

That said, if Mars ever wound up trapped in Earth's gravitational field, how in the heck did it escape? Gravity wells aside, Mars is not in Earth's gravitational feild now, and I find it hard to believe that even if Mars is in the gravity well occupied by the earth, it would've caused massive tidal disruption before and would not continue to do so now.

13 posted on 04/19/2002 3:46:47 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
If I have the story straight, four guys cut down thousands of trees, milled the lumber, and built a ship the size of an ocean liner, all by hand. Although there is no indication that they were kings or rich merchants, they were also able to come up with enough fodder to stock a 40 day voyage for two of every kind of animal in the world. These animals in their tens of thousands somehow managed to arrive at the ship, across oceans and continents full of predators. It then rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and hard enough to raise the sea level almost 30,000 feet above where it is now. Then all this water "subsided" somewhere and the animals went home. Is that about right?
14 posted on 04/19/2002 3:57:26 PM PDT by TONEMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: RightWhale
When did the All-knowing, All-powerful, Limitless and Illimitable God become unable to do something that even His creations do every day?

Sort of belies that whole "omnipotence" thing, doesn't it?

16 posted on 04/20/2002 12:25:56 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TONEMAN
Is that about right?

No -- The tank for the freshwater fish was the hard part.

17 posted on 04/20/2002 2:58:45 PM PDT by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
While Velikovsky based his theories on periodic celestial events, contemporary catastrophical thought centers around small body impacts. Certainly the end of the cretaceous was due to a small body impact. In the 1980's the debate between gradualist vrs catastrophist paleontology was settled. Further the jupiter impact of the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet in 1994 answered the question of the conservation of momentium that you had raised.


One does not have to search for iridium anomalies for evidence to substantiate the hypothesis of periodic global extinctions. For instance, the evidence of the rapid global extinctions of the Permian period ( prior to the start of the Triassic ) is without question caused by an impact of exterrestial origin. The familial diversity patterns of the corals, bivalves, and trilobites is clearly indicated by the sudden geologic evidence.


I believe that you are not really understanding what contemporary catastrophical thought is all about. There is no question that the mechanics of rapid global change can be due to periodic exterrestial impacts. It is now embraced by the scientific community. There is also no question that global flora and fauna variations occur periodicly and are usually associated with small body impacts. This is also embraced by most students of the sciences.


I suspect that you are concerned with planetary realignments due to small body impacts. I take it that you disagree that ANY impact can alter the orbit and rotational behavior of a planetary body. Even using basic dynamics you can show that this is indeed possible. I think that the crux of your argument is that you are not convinced that this happenned in the earth past.


The kinds of impacts that I am concerned about and what most catastrophical studies are centered around is the effects of minor and small-scale impacts during the period and at the time of human existance. If you have a pond in your garden, and you chip a golf ball in it, the water within the pond will be affected. The creatures in the pond will experience a change in the laminar flow and the thermocline, and would, for a period of time, experience turbulent flow, and perhaps affect the food intate of the fishes. This is all that modern catastrophical thought is all about.


The article again is related to "discontinuities in human history". Ther is no question that there has been discontinuities in human history. There is also no question that they are inexplicitly sudden in nature. Thus, the article argues that the sudden appearance of discontinuities in the human record is a function of catastrophical rather than gradualist theory.


Now, the actual studies of the dynamics of catastrophical thought is more than just simple dynamics. I pull out my Marks Handbook, and I can clearly see that the basic equations for the dynamics of particles. But you must remember that these formula are derived and related to the motion of a body under the action of a constant unbalanced force. But, we know that in reality with a small body (compared to that of the Earth), that the atmosphere alters the force and even the mass of the body, thus creating a much more complex formula. An planetary impact on an airless planet is different than one with an atmosphere.


I think that you are really concerned with the conservation of impulse and momentum. In the case of small body impacts, the impacts are always oblique. Your concern that the law of the conservation of momentum states that the linear momentum of a system of bodies is unchanged ONLY if there is no resultant external force on the system. You havew to take into account the variations in a variable mass. So that F=m(dv/dt) + u(dm/dt). This affects everything and becomes much more pronounced when one looks at how it affects gyroscopic motion.


That is whay, when you discuss planetary impacts, that you use derived equations that include the (formerly ignored) variables of varing mass, gyroscopic motion, temperature, pressure, and velocity over time. The article is a bit esoteric but it is exactly the calculations needed to derive that resultant conclusion.


In summary, the Kepler description of motion did not require the rigid evaluation as required in impact studies. So, I am not defending the wandering Venus theory. That can pass. I am instead supporting the view of small (in comparison to the Earth) planetary impacts that has been of sufficient impact energy to alter or modify the human existence.
18 posted on 04/20/2002 5:05:25 PM PDT by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
I knew this was mostly hokum when I saw "Bolovia" [sic] spelled that way consistently --time after time-- throughout this article.
19 posted on 04/20/2002 5:10:25 PM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest
-- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

20 posted on 05/19/2005 8:31:42 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FR profiled updated Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Fewer graphics, faster loading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson