Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

I'm new to the site, but wa wondering what your thoughts were with regards to some evidence I have read about the possibility of a seven part comet strike around 7150BC, which also incorporates biblical evidence, and also the evidence of a later, smaller comet strike in the Meditteranian area which may explain the biblical flood, and follows biblical scriptures relating to Enoch.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimmy:
I'm new to the site, but wa wondering what your thoughts were with regards to some evidence I have read about the possibility of a seven part comet strike around 7150BC, which also incorporates biblical evidence, and also the evidence of a later, smaller comet strike in the Meditteranian area which may explain the biblical flood, and follows biblical scriptures relating to Enoch.

---

Reference please. I haven't heard of this.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I do not have the information in front of me at the moment, so what i am about to describe, i will correct if necessary in my next post. I have just completed reading Uriel's Machine, by Robert Lomas and Chris Knight. In this book they examine the theory that there was a huge seven part comet strike around 7640 BC(my origonal date was wrong as i did not have the source material in front of me). They take for evidence for this as readings of nitric acid, caused by the entry of the comet through the atmosphere, which burns up the nitrogen in the air, falling as rain, and is thus deposited on the ground. They also looked at magnetostratisgraphical records which show disturbances in the earths magnetic field. Both of these methods show the possibility for a huge strike in 7640 BC, and also a smaller one around 3150BC.
the seven part stike is alluded to in certain biblical passages, in terms of' seven stars fell to the earth...'. Again i will provide more information tomorrow when i have the source material. The authors were trying to corroborate the biblical story of the flood, concerning Enoch, and examined the comet strike evidence to see if it could be a possible cause.They hypothesise that certain people, namely the Groove Ware people of Europe, were aware of the earlier comet strike, due to their amazing astronomical skills, and had predicted the second smaller strike in 3150BC, and had warned Enoch of this.
The book itself is fascinating, and while as a whole, the book touches on many subjects, I found the information on the flood fascinating.
Plese do not be too critical in reply, i have become a member to learn from others, not argue, but thank you for your interest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimmy:

Plese do not be too critical in reply, i have become a member to learn from others, not argue, but thank you for your interest.

---

Well, I won't argue much until you are confident that your facts are straight. In the meantime: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.astunit.com/astrocrud/uriel.htm------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

Hmm, what about the evidence that submergence is related to disance from the divergent plate boundaries? Another relationship that you ignore...

---

Quite to the contrary, I view the fact that amount of apparent submergence is related to distance from hot spots and plate edges and continental plates, as very important. First as pointed out earlier, the submergence had to have occurred rapidly enough to kill the coral. Second, adding an enormous amount of glacial water to the oceans in a short period of time would depress the sea floors in a predicted pattern that matches what we find. As predicted by a number of geologists over the years, the depression would push down more on larger basins with less depression occurring in smaller basins and closer to shore. As the sea floor is depressed, it is to be expected that active spreading areas due to the presence of hotter more buoyant magma, would be depressed somewhat less. Then as the surrounding sea floor is pushed down, more of the rising magma would be pushed towards the center of the active area. This would result in less depression in active areas and create the pattern found in island and sea mount elevations. Please remember here that I am talking about a number of cycles here in connection with the swings of the ice age and not just the last one that resulted in a global flood, also not every submerged guyot was recently submerged, some date from much earlier times and may not have recently been near the surface.

quote:

---

The point is that these raised beach terraces are not high enough to indicate a global flood.

---

You have so far been missing the point. I haven't been referring to raised island terraces as evidence of the high water mark for deluge sea levels, they are of course too low in elevation to be used as such evidence as you pointed out. I have been using them to show that the pattern of both high shorelines and low ones far below sea level in many cases on the same island, is inconsistent with the standard model of island creation and only makes sense if the islands have experienced recent movement in both directions. The global distribution of these former shorelines also indicate that the force that created them is not a local force, but is one that has acted world wide. The ages of the more recent shorelines show that this agent has acted recently at the end of the last ice age. The pattern here points towards the island elevation changes having been triggered or caused by very large swings in ocean volumes in connection with the formation and break up of the Pleistocene ice sheets. As you pointed out the pattern seen in sea mount submergence, as described in the above paragraph, matches the expectations of the effects created by movement of the sea floors due to hydrostatic depression and rebound.

quote:

---

most of the sea floor is 'old and cold'. Are you saying that your mechanism didn't even affect most of the oceanic crust?

---

Hydrostatic depression caused by an increase in ocean volume will push the 'old and cold' oceanic crust down, basic geology. Only in areas where there are other factors at work, such as pressure differential or the positive lifting force of rising magma, would local up lift be created in an area under going a general depression. Due to the 'old and cold' ocean floor lacking these other factors that can affect island elevation, the ocean floor wasn't locally uplifted as some islands and other areas were.

quote:

---

But then where did all that magma go? To the edges of the ocean basin?

---

Good, an intelligent question that I was hoping you would ask. When returning melt water depressed the ocean floors, locally some magmas did go horizontally when that route was open, such as near the shoreline or adjacent to rising islands. Most went straight down into the earth to come up beneath land areas in other parts of the globe. As John recently posted, continental crust is very rigid compared to oceanic crust. Where as oceanic crust is depressed like a flexible surface stretched between the continents, continents on the large scale, are more prone to moving up and down as a block. In the glacial maximum, the sea basins rebounded which pulled magma from beneath the continents which caused them to subside. When the glacial waters returned to the sea, the sea floors were pushed back down and the continents were pushed back up. This movement is on a large scale and is a fluid response. Local isostatic adjustments generally are of the plastic type involving horizontal movement such as in the creation of glacial forebulges. In the case of the Pacific ocean, we see both types of adjustment at work, most of the movement was fluidic down into the earth on a global scale, and some was more local and plastic such as around the edge, the 'Ring of Fire' which is the result repeated episodes of plastic isostatic displacement combined with the effects of on going plate tectonics.

quote:

---

That's another interesting observation since the ocean basins seem to get deeper as the crust gets older. Now which is it? Are the islands attached to a rigid plate or not? You contradict yourself.

---

Many times perceived contradictions are due to a misconception on the reader's part, once a better understanding is gained, many of the perceived contradictions disappear. Yes islands are attached to a rigid plate, but that attachment is not always rigid. A new island has a more flexible attachment while a very old island or sea mound is much more rigid in it's attachment. The degree of flexibility is dependent on the local temperature of the magma, hotter magma beneath new islands renders the local crust more soft and flexible, whereas in the case of an old sea mount once hot magma has cooled and the sea mount is no longer supported by the buoyancy of hot magma from below and is now a cold heavy weight on the sea floor. That is also the reason sea floors sink as they age, they cool and become heavier. The sifts in elevations in the ocean basins seen in connection with the swings in Pleistocene ice volumes, are the result of the interplay of changing pressures, elevation effects and flexibility and specific gravity caused by the relative temperature of the local lithosphere.

quote:

---

Where is the evidence that your flood covered even the elevation of my house?

---

Some of the evidence already cited in this thread is from higher elevations and as I have stated before, I am currently involved in on going research on plotting the extent of the post glacial marine transgression.

Dear John;

quote:

---

Oh gee, wmscott, I'm an idiot and I hadn't figured this out.

---

No John I don't think you are an idiot, idiots believe everything they are told, intelligent people question and challenge everything. I wish I had challenged more as you did, what I read some time ago in a geology book on island elevation. You are absolutely right, buoyancy is not a factor in island elevation. You are wrong in some of your examples, but you are right where it counts. The submerged part of the island is buoyantly lifted by the water due to pore pressure just like I stated, but as you pointed out the pressure in the pores is equal, down as well as up. The upward force of buoyancy is balanced by the downward pressure of the supporting water column which cancels the effect of buoyancy as seen from beneath the sea floor. I was in error on my example of the stone column, when it cracks it does get lighter by a third due to buoyancy, but the amount of buoyant uplift is equal to the pressure pushing down on the bottom side of the crack, the two pressures cancel out as you correctly pointed out. In the case of my math model of a cone shaped island when the sea level drops 2 km, yes there is a 2 km slice of rock that is no longer buoyantly supported by the water and is now heavier by the amount of displaced water, but the pore pressure inside the cone pressing down on the sea floor is also less by 2 km and since 2 km the water cylinder is larger in volume than the 2 km cone section, the net effect is less pressure on the island footprint rather than an increase. So on the main point of buoyancy affecting island elevations, I find I have to concede completely. I want to thank you for your insight, this is why I post here, so that people can show me where I am wrong and I can correct such mistakes in the future.That said, the island will still subside due to the island footprint is now heavier in comparison with the pressure reduction seen in the surrounding ocean floor. The loss of buoyancy as a factor cuts the projected about of subsidence in half, but that still leaves half. In consideration, I am ether going to have to learn to be happy with half the subsidence or look more at the effects of shifting pressures causing larger movement beneath the crust. Frankly, I am going to have to revaluate and modify my theories on changing island elevation due to ocean volume changes.

Dear Jimmy;The seven impacts cited all took place in the ocean where they would have no effect on global sea levels. The authors of books that cite this evidence, generally interpret the Biblical flood as a sort of global catastrophe caused by the related events ocean impacts would cause. However since the flood did involve a large temporary increase in global sea levels, ocean impacts are not the cause. They may or may not have happened at the time of the flood which did involve comet impacts on continental ice sheets which would significantly raise the global sea level.I know of no biblical references to the falling of seven stars in connection with the flood. What verse do they refer to? The biblical references to Enoch are very few, and none refer to falling stars ether, perhaps the reference was to the non biblical book called Enoch?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmscott:
...
Some of the evidence already cited in this thread is from higher elevations and as I have stated before, I am currently involved in on going research on plotting the extent of the post glacial marine transgression. [/B][/QUOTE]Good. When you find some evidence for a global flood, please let us know. In the meantime, I see little use in discussing a mechanism for an event for which there is no supporting evidence.Until then, this is a colossal waste of time. You have convoluted the entire science of geology creating shallow water where there is deep water, and denying what we actually observe happening at volcanic centers all over the world. Mainstream geology has explanations for EVERY observation that you make, but you simply ignore all of the work done in the past and cling to your myth of a flood. You have no problem forcing data to conform to your forgone conclusion of a global flood.

Thank you for your post. Yes, you are correct that the reference sorce I was quoting was the book of Enoch.There are some references to him in the Bible,such as Genesis 5:21-29,Chapter 3 of the Gospel of Luke, and one i consider quite important from the New Testament, in Jude 1:13-14, in which Enoch prophesises a catastrophe that will befall Earth,...'Raging waves of the sea, forming out of their own shame, wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever...'.
From the extracts of the book of Enoch I have read, it is easy to see the correlation between what is described, and the physical evidence imposed by a seven part strike. There are sections of the book,Uriels Machine, which also link to the idea of a movement or displacement of the earth's surface under the pressure of the rising see levels, in an attempt to explain where all the water went, if the flood did indeed occurr.To deal with John's request for more detailed information, the evidence to support a seven part strike, in the texts I have so far read(not huge numbers I'm afraid), is as follows.The initial research was conducted by a couple called the Tollmans. They looked first at the distribution of tektites, which could be formed by molten rocks being ejected into the atmosphere, freezing into rounde spheres, and falling to the ground. It has been generally recognised that the are possibly the result of high energy impacts with the earth.
The Tollmans research provided them with seven likely areas for seven ocean impacts.More evidence caomes from the study of dendrochronology.They discovered a blip in the radio-carbon calibration curve relative to the Tunguska explosion in 1908, so looked for one to fit in with their own findings, and they again found an anomoly, a pronounced peak around 9500BP,or around 7000-8000 BC. Further evidence came from ice cores, taken and tested in 1980, which show a huge peak of nitric acid around 7640BC. Nitric acid forms as the comet,or asteroid, burns through the atmosphere, burning the nitrogen in the air, thus falling as rain. This may also be linked to biblical descriptions of the flood in which the descriptions of 'bloody rainfall' are used.
More evidence came from the magnetostratisgraphical records which show a large disturbance in the earths magnetic field between 7000-8000BC.The evidence put forward in the book is quite compelling, indeed wmscott, in his reply, seemed to me to accept it, but did not relate it to the flood stories because these were ocean impacts. I am curios as to your reasons for this. Granted i am merely commenting on evidence given from a small source, at this time only 'Uriels Machine', but the evidence and accounts given in the book suggest that ocean impacts at this time could have caused world wide flooding.
Apert from the two tsunamis, of massive height, which would be formed,and could be responsible for flooding many inland areas,it would also over time increase co2, increasing the world temperature and speeding up the melting of the ice sheets, which may already have been occurring due to the retreating of the previous Ice Age.my question is what reason do you have for negating an ocean strike as the suse of the flood, when similar associted research assists your argument for the shifting of the earths surface to accomodate the increase in water volume?sorry for the length of the post...i get carried away!

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Dear Jimmy;

​

The seven impacts cited all took place in the ocean where they would have no effect on global sea levels. The authors of books that cite this evidence, generally interpret the Biblical flood as a sort of global catastrophe caused by the related events ocean impacts would cause. However since the flood did involve a large temporary increase in global sea levels, ocean impacts are not the cause. They may or may not have happened at the time of the flood which did involve comet impacts on continental ice sheets which would significantly raise the global sea level.

​

I know of no biblical references to the falling of seven stars in connection with the flood. What verse do they refer to? The biblical references to Enoch are very few, and none refer to falling stars ether, perhaps the reference was to the non biblical book called Enoch?

---

Please can you explain the evidence which supports the idea that the flood was caused by rising sea levels, as opposed to impact related features such as tsunamis, and the extended period after an impact in which may see the sea temperature rise, thus further assisting the meltingof the ice fields.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
So on the main point of buoyancy affecting island elevations, I find I have to concede completely.

---

Wow.... that's not s'possed to happen. You are a rare blossom in a field of bad poetry.

quote:

---

I want to thank you for your insight, this is why I post here, so that people can show me where I am wrong and I can correct such mistakes in the future.

---

Same here. You've forced me to learn a lot about geology and about the mechanics of buoyancy ( after, of course, the first hurdle of learning to spell it ) Muchos gracias.

quote:

---

Frankly, I am going to have to revaluate and modify my theories on changing island elevation due to ocean volume changes.

---

Can't wait to hear the reevaluated theory.Take care.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear Edge;

quote:

---

Mainstream geology has explanations for EVERY observation that you make,

---

Really? What is the mainstream geology explanation for finding recent planktonic Foraminifera in SE Wisconsin at an elevation of 1000 ft? According to mainstream geology, at the end of the ice age, sea levels slowly rose to current levels and were never significantly above and this area was not significantly depressed in the ice age due in part to the glacial forebulge effect.

Dear John;

quote:

---

Can't wait to hear the reevaluated theory.

---

Me too. It will take some time and research. One thing that could be a factor is gas release. I am currently reading "The Deep Hot Biosphere" by Thomas Gold, and he describes large gas releases as being associated with earthquakes and volcanoes as part of this theory. If he is correct, that would place large amounts of gas beneath volcanic islands. A large reduction in sea level could in theory cause the island to deeply sink down into the area of magma infused with gas like a balloon, then when the sea level increased the gas cold be pressed back under the island which would raise it. Gold's theory is not yet mainstream, but I think he is on the right track and would like to plug his ideals into our discussion and see what happens. Since you shot down my island buoyancy theory, I think you owe me a theory and should at least help me knock together (or down) a replacement. So let me know what you think, see any obvious problems? If not maybe I can expand on this in time.

Dear Jimmy;The book of Enoch is an uninspired, apocryphal book written probably sometime during the second and first centuries B.C. and as such, there is no reason to believe that it has any reliable information on ancient events that took place long before the writer's birth. The reference in Jude to 'Raging waves of the sea' and 'wandering stars' occurs in verse 13 before Jude's reference to Enoch in verse 14 and has nothing to do with Enoch. Jude was warning about 'ungodly men' who were a bad influence in the congregation, and he compares them as being like raging waves and wandering stars, both of which would be great danger to an ancient mariner. Then in verse 14&15, Jude mentions how Enoch had prophesied concerning the destruction of such like people in his day, his prophecy was not fulfilled in the flood but rather refers to the coming judgment day, since the reference in verse 14 to God coming with an angelic army to execute judgment against the wicked is obviously a clear reference to events in 'the end times' and finds many parallels in Revelation. In short, there is no biblical support for comet impacts as being part of the flood event. I do believe that comet impacts were involved and there is some evidence to support that conclusion, it is just that the Bible doesn't say a word on it one way or the other.On the seven ocean comet strikes, I have a book that refers to the same and I have decided to follow up on the references. I have tracked down a few of them so far, but they don't look very conclusive and there seems to be some dating discrepancies. Now I only have a relative faith in absolute dating methods and I am willing to accept they are sometimes in error perhaps by a factor of let's say 10, but some of dating for the comet evidence would require an error factor of well over a 100, possible but not very lightly. But I am still checking, perhaps the book you read has better references. Could you post or e-mail them? If they are older than 10 years I think I have those already. If you have a scanner, scan it into your word program, cut the references and paste them into a list. Then next time you post, paste the reference list in your post.Now as to whether or not these seven comet impacts were part of the flood, I can't really say one way or the other without first looking over the evidence. In doing the research for my book I came across some of this information and decided to leave it out since it wasn't key to the flood occurring and the evidence that I did find was somewhat thin and there was not a good way of tying the events together in a connected way. In fact I did use the possibility of ocean impacts triggering ice sheet surges in my book, but I didn't tie it in to any specific impact event evidence, since due to the limited information, it would too easy to cite the wrong event. But I have since focused more on direct impacts on the ice sheets themselves and have found some evidence to tends to support that conclusion. Ocean impacts may very well have occurred also, but even if they did, they may not have been any of the seven cited. Once the pieces of this puzzle are better understood it may be possible to tie in some of these ocean impacts with the flood, until then, I would rather leave the door open.

quote:

---

can you explain the evidence which supports the idea that the flood was caused by rising sea levels, as opposed to impact related features such as tsunamis, and . . . melting of the ice fields.

---

The Bible describes the flood as lasting about year. A comet caused tsunami would only last a few hours or days at the very most. The biblical ark would have probably been destroyed by a tsunami large enough to strand it on a mountain in Turkey. The Bible describes a global flood that covers even the mountain tops and then slowly recedes over a period of months which would not match with the effects of a tsunami but would match the effects of a post ice age flood. The 40 days of rain does sound like it was caused by an impact and it probably was. Ocean impacts may have occurred, but the biblical description is of a global flood which would require a large rise in sea level. There is or was a way of flooding the world, if the ice age ended suddenly, the huge amount of glacial ice and water returned to the seas would cause a very sudden rise in sea level. During the long glacial period, as much of the world's water was tied up in ice sheets on land, the oceans shrank and the sea floors rebounded which also caused the wide spread lowering of the land. For as the sea bottoms moved upward, there was only one place that could make up the difference and that was the land areas. So if water was dumped back into the oceans faster than the earth could adjust, the seas would flood the land. Then as the increased water depth pushed the sea floors back down, the land would slowly rise back above water. This matches the general description of the flood events as described in the Bible.So the biblical evidence can be seen as supporting a post ice age flood. Physical evidence that supports that conclusion includes the evidence that the ice age did indeed come to a very abrupt end. We have abundant evidence of huge water releases coming from the ice sheets at the end of the ice age, super flood evidence, streamlined drumlins, ice rafted drop stones on land and sea, micro marine traces found far inland and high above sea level, raised shorelines, marine animals living in lakes and some traces in mountain lakes. This is a long thread and we have been discussing some of the evidence for a long time, if you use this web pages search feature suing any of the above terms, it should lead you to one of my earlier posting which describe these things in more detail.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmscott:
Really? What is the mainstream geology explanation for finding recent planktonic Foraminifera in SE Wisconsin at an elevation of 1000 ft? According to mainstream geology, at the end of the ice age, sea levels slowly rose to current levels and were never significantly above and this area was not significantly depressed in the ice age due in part to the glacial forebulge effect.[/B][/QUOTE]Probably the best explanation is wind blown plankton (wait, I thought you said forams before). Other than that, I have no problem with local lacustrine or other periglacial deposits at elevations above sea level. The point is that there is no need to evoke some fantastic theory to get these deposits, and there is no evidence for a global flood.[This message has been edited by edge, 10-04-2002]