Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

Hi Paul,Post away as many as you like, but the translation of 'Yam Suph', as the guys have pointed out, actually means 'Reed Sea' or 'Sea of Reeds'.This is just another example of how flawed the Bible, as we have it, actually is. The 'Red Sea' translation was abandoned a long time ago, yet is still used by morons such as those who run the scam at Wyatt Archaeology.Notice that I did say 'Where in the Hebrew Bible is it stated', fact is, it is never stated in the Hebrew Bible that they crossed the Red Sea. Im guessing that you have used the most erroneous translation of all time, the King James Version of the Holy Bible.Try to pay attention to the wording of the question in future, it saves a lot of time. They do not point to the Red Sea, the reference has been mistranslated, it need only be mistranslated once in order for it to be mistranslated in other instances. You do know that the Red Sea is too far south for it to be the Sea that was crossed in the Exodus? Don't take my word for it take the word of these archaeologists and scholars.Amy Dockser Marcus, Rewriting the Bible: How Archaeology is Reshaping the Middle East Little Brown and Co. London 2000, page 53 Another view holds that a number of the phenomena described in Exodus, including the parting of the 'Sea of Reeds' (mistranslated as the 'Red Sea' in some versions of the Bible) could be linked to the volcanic eruption of Thera on the Mediterranean island of Santorini... Martin Noth The History of Ancient Israel , SCM Press Ltd. London 1958, page 115 footnote 3* Outside the Pentateuch narrative (and in some passages in the Pentateuch, probably only secondary)this sea is specifically called the 'Reed Sea'. B S J Isserlin The Israelites Thames and Hudson, London 1998, page 51 and 52, When, thereafter, he decided to send his troops after in pursuit of the Israelites, the latter were miraculously delivered at the Sea of Reeds. page 52 Leaving aside the puzzles offered by the miraculous delivery of the Israelites at the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Some other body of water near Tell el Dab'ah, rather than the Red Sea may be what is referred to). Werner Keller The Bible as History: Archaeology confirms the Book of Books Hodder and Stoughton Ltd, London 1956, page 126 The first difficulty is one of translation. The Hebrew words 'Yam Suph' are sometimes translated as the 'Red Sea' at other times as the 'Reed Sea'. The Reed Sea is frequently mentioned: 'For we have heard how the eternal dried up the water of the Reed Sea before you when you left Egypt.' (Josh 2:10: Moffat's translation) In the Old Testament up to Jeremiah it is called the 'Reed Sea'. The New Testament speaks only of the 'Red Sea' (Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29). On the shores of the Red Sea there are no reeds. The Reed Sea proper lay further north.John Bright, A History of Israel SCM Press Ltd, London 1976 pages 120-1 It is unlikely that the Israelites crossed the tip of the Red Sea (Gulf of Suez) itself. This is so far to the south that the Egyptian cavalry would surely have caught them long before they reached it. We cannot suppose that the Red Sea then extended north of its present shoreline to connect with the Bitter Lakes, for there is now evidence that it did not. Moreover, the sea (yam suf) is properly the 'Reed Sea' not Red Sea (the Red Sea has no reeds). I could go on, but the point is clear, the Red Sea is NOT the sea of the Exodus, most Bibles even explain this. If you want any more references then just ask, I would be happy to supply them.Look at the footnote at this site. http://www.biblegateway.com...
{Shortened display form of above URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}Give me some credit Paul, do you think I would be so stupid as to ask a question with such an obvious answer?I assumed that Rives would have done some homework since he apparently presents seminars on Wyatt's 'finds' but he consistently igonred me requests to provide references. Maybe he has looked it up and he knows that the true translation kills the golden goose.Best Wishes.Brian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing![This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 05-29-2003][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-29-2003]

Nice trick question, but this little Reed Sea sideshow seems to be off the intent of the topic, which buzsaw has (re?)outlined in message 55.Cheers,
Moose

Hi, Buzsaw.Where in the Bible is a global drought predicted? A scriptural citation would be helpful here. I agree. But do you have any evidence that global warming will cause a world-wide drought? Most scientists agree that global warming is a fact, but there is still quite a bit of argument over how this warming will influence world climate trends. Near as I can tell, no one is in complete agreement on exactly what will happen. To grossly simplify, some regions may experience drought, while others may suffer increased flooding. Global drought, however, has not been suggested by any future climate model that I'm aware of. Maybe so. But do you have a citation? Assertions don't provide the most compelling argument. And this demonstrates... what? How does this support your argument? Would massive global fires contribute to global warming or global cooling? (I'm not real sure myself, actually.) I suspect that huge amounts of fine debris in the atmosphere would lead to a short-term cooling trend. Specifically, I'm thinking of 1991-2 after Mt Pinatubo erupted---do you remember what happened to global climate then? On #4: are increases in (U.S.) forest fires a result of global warming? Maybe. But could there be other explanations or contributing factors? How about a citation? As for #5: Citation, please. Um, what? Perhaps you could expand upon this a bit. A meteor big enough to alter earth's orbit might do a wee bit more than just trigger new weather patterns, don't you think? Could it be that the nature of the prophecy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow the prophecy to fit almost ANY phenomena? Whaaaaa?!? Umm... how so? I thought earthquakes were caused by plate tectonics. You have a new mechanism to propose? As for the vaporized oceans bit: Where's all that water going to? Some sort of vapor "canopy," perhaps? If so, can you tell me how much heat is necessary to keep the water vapor from re-condensing? While you're at it, I'd like to see your estimate for what the atmospheric pressure would be (at the earth's surface) if most of the planet's oceans were suspended in a vapor canopy. In your opinion, would life be possible under these conditions? On the matter of nuclear warfare and its climate-altering consequences (assuming a WW III scenario): Have you heard of a nuclear winter before? Do you think would this exacerbate global warming? If so, why? Finally, when you discover the necessary heat/pressure values for your "terrarium" canopy, what state will Jesus find the planet in upon his return?--MacavityP.S. Did you read any of the geology texts suggested to you by others at the start of this thread?[This message has been edited by Macavity, 05-30-2003]

quote:

---

Most educated professional archeologists and scientists have been programmed in school to believe the theories, I say theories, taught in these schools.

---

Of course they are theories.Like the Atomic Theory of Matter, the Germ Theory of Disease, Relativity Theory, Gravitatioal Theory, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, to name a few, are "theories".Scientists are taught these theories, too. "Programmed", to use your language.Are you suggesting that all scientific theories are baseless and are taught as some kind of unchanging dogma? Sorry, that's actually what religion does, not science.Science is tentative and changes in the light of new evidence. That's why we don't think that Apollo drives the around the earth in his firey chariot any more, or that maggots spontaneously form from rotting flesh, or that the Noachic flood happened, or that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.Anyway, do you believe that all scientific theories are suspect? In that case, I wonder if you go to the doctor, or if you believe that electrons exist? To remain consistent, you must not accept any modern medical practices, as they are based upon the scientific method. Likewise, you must completely disbelieve Einstein, as this is all theoretical science.

quote:

---

They insist on interpreting eveything they see to fit what they've been programmed to believe.

---

Actually, careers are made and scientists become famous for OVERTURNING old paradigms and for discovering new stuff! Einstein is a great example.The difference is, science is designed to respond to new evidence. It responds conservatively; new evidence is extensively tested and the more radical the departure from current thinking, the more scrutiny and testing the new evidence is subjected to.Religion, by contrast, is not designed to respond to evidence at all. To religion, evidence is irrelevant.Over the centuries, it is science which has shown itself to be the most powerful and reliable method for understanding nature. We don't use the Bible to find cures for disease. We don't use the Bible to figure out how to make a space shuttle. We don't use the Bible to learn about how to breed more disease-resistant plants.Believe what you want, but I say that if you reject science while simultaneously getting regular vaccinations, you are the worst kind of hypocrite.

quote:

---

They are the vast majority, so everything Biblical folks, who are the minority, teach about what is observed is naturally debunked by the pros.

---

It's "naturally debunked" by the pros because it isn't based upon sound scientific methodology, evidence, or reasoning. If the evidence and methodology were sound it wouldn't matter if the idea was not one held by the majority. Anyone can submit papers to many scientific journals, and it's free.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-30-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-30-2003]

quote:

---

1. We are experiencing global warming.

---

Ok. The planet's climate has fluctuated wildly over it lifetime. What we are seeing now is mild and there are some very good non-metaphysical reasons for what is happening.

quote:

---

2. Our weather is coming up with many new records so far as violent stuff goes. I'm almost 68, and I know there's been big time change in incidence of tornados and violent weather than when I was young.

---

Please note that we have only been recording such events accurately for less than a hundred years. Breaking records is easy when you first start playing the game. Anything, basically, is a record. The point is, we don't really know the norm is for storm cycles.Also think about this. Are you considering local phenomena or global averages? In other words, Oklahoma could have a thousand more than their average number of tornados this year but if the rest of the world has fewer than average, you can't say that the number of storms per year is increasing.Another thing to think about is the proportion of fair to foul weather. If some regions are experiencing an increase of foul weather, are some other regions experiencing an increase of fair weather? If so, you can't say that bad weather is trumping the good. All that has happened is that the weather patterns have changed, but not for good or ill.

quote:

---

3. The prophet John, in Revelation predicted a third of the trees to be burnt up. He also predicted a three and a half year period of extreme drought on the earth involving two powerful prophets of God to emerge on the scene.

---

I don't see a third of the trees being burned, nor do I see a worldwide drought, nor do I see two prophets. Are we to talk about something that isn't happening?

quote:

---

4. In spite of much better equipment and prevention techniques, a great increase in forest fires.

---

Sorry. No dice. Forest fires are normal. We notice because we are now in the way.

quote:

---

5. Drought conditions seem to be steadily increasing world wide.

---

There are a lot of regions suffering drought. Does this mean drought is increasing or does it mean that for the first time we can track such things? I'd bet on the latter. Drought has always been a problem. True, one can get thousands of returns by searching for 'world drought.' But try searching for 'record rainfall.' Thousands of returns there too.

quote:

---

6. With big time evaporation from drought the prediction of the prophets of the darkening of the atmosphere could become a reality as moisture accumulates upstairs.

---

Moisture that accumulates in the atmosphere comes back down as rain, or some other form of precipitation. It doesn't just accumulate forever.

quote:

---

7 The hint of a meteor hitting an ocean wiping out a third of the ships, if fulfilled, could alter the earth's position in it's orbit, it would seem. This may also work to trigger new weather patterns on the planet.

---

Again, we are to talk about something that hasn't happened? Besides, a meteor probably would alter the Earth's orbit. Any impact, technically, alters the orbit. But a meteor big enough to noticably alter the Earth's orbit would be big enough to qualify as a 'planet killer.' There would be nothing left alive to notice the altered weather patterns.

quote:

---

8. The planet is beginning to look more and more like it could indeed experience the prophesied phenomena.

---

Or not. All you've said is 'maybe it might happen.' Sorry, I'm not convinced.

quote:

---

9. Drought to the extent of evaporating much of the oceans would most assuredly precipitate the worldwide earthquakes predicted in Revelation and other prophetic scriptures.

---

Wow... where to begin?Drought won't evaporate anywhere near the volume of the oceans, because long before the oceans disappear the atmosphere itself would become liquid and consequently fall back to the ground and refill the oceans. Why do you think that most of the water on Earth can be suspended in the air? Why do you think rain falls? Rain falls because the water content of the local atmosphere becomes so great that the water droplets crash together and fall down. This all happens at a fraction of the saturation you are suggesting.Earthquakes originate where crustal plate interact.

quote:

---

10. Nuclear warfare and accidents may factor in here as well as industrial pollution.

---

So will interpret anything as fulfilling the prophecy, then?

quote:

---

11. I've said the above to say that the terrarium canopy, believed to be on the planet before the flood by many Biblicalists could return to create the conditions prophesied about the "plowman overtaking the reaper," and so forth for the time of the messianic millenium of the messiah, Jesus who will return to earth "with clouds."

---

Your idea has everything going for it that the terrarium canopy idea has-- absolutely nothing.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Hi, Buzsaw.

---

Hi Macavity. I see this is your first post. Thanks for coming aboard and welcome.

quote:

---

Where in the Bible is a global drought predicted? A scriptural citation would be helpful here.

---

In Revelation 11:6 we have the account of two very unique prophets of God. "These have the power to shut the heaven, that it rain not during the reign of their prophecy, and they have the power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they shall desire." In verse three it gives the length of the time of their prophesing as three and a half years. They are finally killed and their dead bodies are left on the streets of Jerusalem for 3 1/2 days as the people of all nations view their dead bodies and rejoice to the point of passing gifts to each other. (TV makes this viewing possible.) Before TV, all figured this couldn't be literal. This all comes during what is the time of God's wrath on the nations.

quote:

---

I agree. But do you have any evidence that global warming will cause a world-wide drought? Most scientists agree that global warming is a fact, but there is still quite a bit of argument over how this warming will influence world climate trends. Near as I can tell, no one is in complete agreement on exactly what will happen. To grossly simplify, some regions may experience drought, while others may suffer increased flooding. Global drought, however, has not been suggested by any future climate model that I'm aware of.

---

I'm just assuming that since these guys don't let much rain come to the extent that the nations are hoppin mad at them, there's gonna be drought. Besides, It sound like a lotta red algae making the water look like blood and likely stagnet low rivers and lakes will cause this. I don't know, does this type of thing cause red algae? Maybe it's something else that makes the water red like blood.

quote:

---

Maybe so. But do you have a citation? Assertions don't provide the most compelling argument.

---

Ask any old fart like me if the weather's changed in the last 60 years overall. Take a survey of the older folks over 60 that you know or can speak to.

quote:

---

And this demonstrates... what? How does this support your argument? Would massive global fires contribute to global warming or global cooling? (I'm not real sure myself, actually.) I suspect that huge amounts of fine debris in the atmosphere would lead to a short-term cooling trend. Specifically, I'm thinking of 1991-2 after Mt Pinatubo erupted---do you remember what happened to global climate then?

---

Little to no rain for 3 1/2 years globally? Somehow this's gotta happen via a slight adjustment by the master weather adjuster upstairs, lmo, but it's going to come to pass, and it'l no doubt mean drout. Also in Revelation 6 the pale horse of the apocalypse brings famine and famine is usually associated with drout.

quote:

---

On #4: are increases in (U.S.) forest fires a result of global warming? Maybe. But could there be other explanations or contributing factors? How about a citation? As for #5: Citation, please.

---

Haven't you been listening to the news the past few years as to how much forest fires are on the alarming increase? They're getting much more frequent and much larger in scope.

quote:

---

Um, what? Perhaps you could expand upon this a bit.

---

Um, I dono, but it's predicted to become so dim that the sun and moon will look red like blood. What holds the moisture up there? I guess the same god who made it all in the first place will do his adjusty thingy bit to do it.

quote:

---

A meteor big enough to alter earth's orbit might do a wee bit more than just trigger new weather patterns, don't you think?

---

I suppose it would depend on the angle it hit and the size of the meteor. I'm just suggesting that as a possibility. Don't know the logistics of such an event, for sure, and likely neither does anybody else for sure. Yah, they can do all their sophisticated iffy theorizing on what would happen, but they have nothing to go on in reality.

quote:

---

Could it be that the nature of the prophecy is sufficiently ambiguous to allow the prophecy to fit almost ANY phenomena?

---

Nope. You gotta have enough changes in the norm to see it beginning to happen. This n that catastrophe has been the norm, but when you see rapid fire catastrophe as well as other prophecies fulfilled for the "latter days," you know it's near. Jesus said "look up" when these things begin to happen. First time in the history of the world when so much is happening "up." Rockets, satelites, weather patterns, jet streaks, bombs, aircraft, missles, tornadoes, and so forth.

quote:

---

Whaaaaa?!? Umm... how so? I thought earthquakes were caused by plate tectonics. You have a new mechanism to propose? As for the vaporized oceans bit: Where's all that water going to? Some sort of vapor "canopy," perhaps? If so, can you tell me how much heat is necessary to keep the water vapor from re-condensing? While you're at it, I'd like to see your estimate for what the atmospheric pressure would be (at the earth's surface) if most of the planet's oceans were suspended in a vapor canopy. In your opinion, would life be possible under these conditions?

---

As I understand the Bible, life was wonderful under similar conditions. The great flood was the first ever rain, producing the first ever rainbow. It'l take a LOTTA heat to do this. Read about it in Revelation 16:8"And the fourth (angel)poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagures; and they repented not to give him glory."It appears that something happens with the sun to make the earth hotter, causing evaporation big time. Likely the "canopy" will reach very high into the atmosphere and it will be spread over so much area in the high atmosphere that it will not make life impossible. It'l be very harsh in the making of it, but when complete it will provide the perfect weather we all longed for and it will cause men to live much longer again as before the flood. It says some place that people will be young at 100. Here it is. Isaiah 65:20 says to the effect that if a person dies at 100 he's but a child. More interestig data here in this chapter.

quote:

---

On the matter of nuclear warfare and its climate-altering consequences (assuming a WW III scenario): Have you heard of a nuclear winter before? Do you think would this exacerbate global warming? If so, why? Finally, when you discover the necessary heat/pressure values for your "terrarium" canopy, what state will Jesus find the planet in upon his return?

---

I dono. I just sain it may have some bearing on things. However, I do believe this; that local things like local volcanoes or nuclear blasts ect may have a cooling effect on the region, but if you have world wide evaporation going on all at the same time everywhere, that's going to have a global insulating effect so as little sunlight will be need to warm the earth. It will be like a filter blanket to insulate the earth from cold outer space. When the density of the canopy becomes just right, the lack of sunlight will be perfectly offset by the insulating effect of the vapor canopy and you have the pre-flood super climate on earth as before.As for earthquakes, Biblically speaking, the last bowl of wrath in Revelation 16 has this worldwide earthquake (dominoe effect, imo) where ALL CITIES, ALL ISLANDS, AND ALL MOUNTAINS are shaken down so as to fairly level the earth to (imo) somewhat like it was before the flood.

quote:

---

MacavityP.S. Did you read any of the geology texts suggested to you by others at the start of this thread?

---

Not yet.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-30-2003]

quote:

---

Of course they are theories.

​

Like the Atomic Theory of Matter, the Germ Theory of Disease, Relativity Theory, Gravitatioal Theory, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, to name a few, are "theories".

---

Germ/disease, gravity, atomic, etc are proven factual present time stuff. Imo, these are no longer theories, but factual, present, proven and observable. I'm talkin about this hiper-snobbish sophisticated arrogancy of claiming to know all this alleged detail about what things were like on planet earth hundreds of millions to billions of years ago. I say HOGWASH!!

quote:

---

Religion, by contrast, is not designed to respond to evidence at all. To religion, evidence is irrelevant.

---

The account of the flood is more historical than religious, imo. The Old Testament contains more history than it does religious doctrine. Much of it has been proven. We who believe it to be accurate historically, look at the things you folks also look at and we see much support for the world flood. I've mentioned Ballard's Black Sea discoveries. You all come back with "it's local and not seen anyplace else." Sure it is. Sea fossils in the Rockies and about everywhere you go is interpreted by us as world wide flood. Just because we don't have a Black Sea over here which has the nice cold deep waters to preserve what is over there doesn't mean it didn't happen over here too and everywhere else. We believe Grand Canyon was cut by it rather suddenly as was the Spirit lake canyon at Mt. St. Helens.

quote:

---

Over the centuries, it is science which has shown itself to be the most powerful and reliable method for understanding nature. We don't use the Bible to find cures for disease. We don't use the Bible to figure out how to make a space shuttle. We don't use the Bible to learn about how to breed more disease-resistant plants.

---

We don't use the Bible to find and prove these things either. We read the Bible, find it reliable in about every way and go to the observable to see if indeed it fits what we read about, and yes it does. Our interpretation of the observed is just as valid, imo as yours. You don't have to have lotsa smarts to see sea fossils all over the planet, scratch your head a minite, think, and come to the realization that there was water over the whole thing at some time or other. You go from there and talk about the more detailed stuff and learn as you go. The more educated folks seem to get, the more they seem to stray from truth, imo, and as the Bible states. Men will be "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Forgot the text, but it's there.)

quote:

---

Believe what you want, but I say that if you reject science while simultaneously getting regular vaccinations, you are the worst kind of hypocrite.

---

I don't get vaccinations and I don't reject science. I'm simply saying your brand of science isn't the only brand in town.

Hi John. Some of your stuff, I've covered but I'll try to address some other.

quote:

---

Ok. The planet's climate has fluctuated wildly over it lifetime. What we are seeing now is mild and there are some very good non-metaphysical reasons for what is happening.

---

Imo, nothing like our day. Ozone problems never before, etc.

quote:

---

Please note that we have only been recording such events accurately for less than a hundred years. Breaking records is easy when you first start playing the game. Anything, basically, is a record. The point is, we don't really know the norm is for storm cycles.

---

Believe me, the world hasn't been so sparcly populated for a loooooong time that biggy tornadoes would go un-noticed and unmentioned. No they didn't measure exact intensities, but anything of much size was big time headlines and not nearly as frequent as we have now.

quote:

---

Also think about this. Are you considering local phenomena or global averages? In other words, Oklahoma could have a thousand more than their average number of tornados this year but if the rest of the world has fewer than average, you can't say that the number of storms per year is increasing.

---

They're so common place today that most are only reported in the nations and areas where they occur. We hear little to nothing abour tornadoes in Africa, but if they're happening here they gotta be happening over there too. It's not just them. It's floods, fires and much more.

quote:

---

I don't see a third of the trees being burned, nor do I see a worldwide drought, nor do I see two prophets. Are we to talk about something that isn't happening?

---

If you were around 300 years ago, you wouldn't see voices and pictures flying through space originating in Seattle to be almost instantly landing in another's living room in a little box in NY either would you? Only the Bible predicted such technology as this with all nations viewing things in one spot on the planet.And with the increase in forest fires, brush fires, etc we see this more likely than it would be a hundred years ago or before, imo.

quote:

---

Sorry. No dice. Forest fires are normal. We notice because we are now in the way.

---

Did I say forest fires are abnormal??

Where, specifically?

I'm surprised that you don't know that this is a completely useless way to reach any decent conclusion. Do you have any knowledge of statistics?

Says who? You have been asked for real data. You have supplied assertions. Even if there is an increase -- how much?In fact, my best guess (but only a guess) is the the problem is there are FEWER forest fires now than a century ago. We over control them.

Well your humble opinion is wrong. You don't know what a theory is do you?

Hi back atcha, Buzz. Thanks for the warm welcome. All right, let's get to it: That verse states (to me, anyway) that such a feat is within the ability of the two prophets. Unfortunately, I don't see anything that indicates how often the prophets will use their abilities. You're making an assumption (about a 3 1/2 yr drought) that is not supported by the text. I'd comment on your statement about TV, but I think ConsequentAtheist has dibs on that issue. And as I said before, you're making an assumption on something I don't feel is well supported by the text. This does not lend credence to your argument. As for your muddied, er--bloodied waters... You're probably thinking of a Red Tide. You can find out all about it with a Google search. You also wrote: "It sounds like a lotta red algae making the water look like blood..." But Revelations 11:6 states that the prophets have the power to turn the waters into blood. That doesn't sound much like "looks like" blood to me. The way I read that bit, I'm thinking transmutation, right? Like water into wine? John fully answered this item in post 65. Read it again, please. BTW, I've read your response to him, and you seem to be waving away his concerns with more assertions. This is not the way to strengthen your case. Your position would be markedly improved with some (non-Biblical) supporting evidence. Since I still don't feel your 3 1/2 yr drought is in any way supported by the text, I can see no reason to comment any further on this one. I certainly have been listening. I've also been climbing in Colorado and Wyoming over the past couple years, and have had quite a few hazy climbs as a result. But this does not necessarily mean that forest fires, overall, are becoming increasingly frequent. You would need some data to support that theory. And the U.S. Forest service might have something like that... (Hint, hint.) Ah, so you don't understand that bit either. Me too. Cool. We ARE making some headway! What holds all that moisture up there? Er, gravity? You are mistaken about no one knowing the logistics of such an event. This link might be a good starting point: http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/index.html The (meteor impact) concepts are really not all that sophisticated. And they're not particularly iffy, either. You might be surprised by just how much scientists have to go on. (Be sure to go to the multimedia section in that link---there's some fantastic depictions of what a planet-killer type impact might look like.) But I didn't ask you how to discern prophecy. I asked you, in a hyperbolic way, if there was any chance prophecy was open to multiple interpretations. Your answer was "Nope." Why isn't it? Life was wonderful, huh? You didn't go looking for the (mainstream science) heat/pressure conditions necessary for a vapor canopy, did you? Please search for a non-YEC discussion about the vapor canopy and then we'll talk about the merits of your claim. OK, let me get this straight: Erupting volcanoes and a WW III scenario plunge the planet into a nuclear winter; meanwhile, a global drought caused by "something happening with the sun" manages to offset the big chill. Next, the debris shroud traps the heat that's evaporating earth's oceans, acting kinda like a big radioactive space blanket... And then, somehow, conditions revert to a state not too far removed from heaven on earth. Have I got that right?Uh... Wow. I take it this scheme requires God to pull off some fairly serious miracles, yes?Concerning your comment on earthquakes: start reading those aforementioned texts, please.--Macavity[This message has been edited by Macavity, 05-31-2003]

Hi Buzsaw!Just thought I'd correct a few more of your misperceptions. Even though this reply is to your Message 66, it also replies to issues you raise in Message 67 and Message 68.You err when you equate global warming with global drought. Just as in your home state of New York where warm summers are more humid than cold winters, global warming would mean increased melting of the polar ice caps, higher ocean levels and increased moisture content in the atmosphere (higher humidity). While it is true that some regions of the world would become dryer, many regions would become wetter. If you need a global drought in order to fulfill Biblical prophecy, global warming is not the right mechanism to produce it. You therefore cannot point to global warming as a harbinger of fulfilled prophecy. Forest fires in the United States today are far less frequent than a hundred years ago. The reason is housing development in previously sparsely settled regions. Forest fires that do start are put out right away because they threaten human habitation, and over time this has caused large areas that previously experienced periodic burns to be completely covered by forests, whereas previously they were a patchwork of forest and burned-out areas. This means that when conditions and circumstances conspire to allow a large fire to take hold and spread that there are no natural firebreaks to stop it, and it can burn for miles and miles and for days and days. So while forest fires today are far less frequent, they are also far larger and more devastating. You are making a significant mistake in assuming that science is as ignorant of such things as yourself. In fact, any kid who pays attention in science class knows enough math and science to answer this one by 10th grade.The mass of the earth is about 6x10²⁷ grams. Let's assume that in order to alter the earth's orbit to a sufficiently significant degree an object must be at least 0.01% as massive as the earth, which would be 6x10²³ grams. Using the typical asteroid density of about 3.6 grams/cm³ we can solve for the necessary volume and get 1.7x10²³ cubic centimeters. Plugging in the volume equation for a sphere, (4/3)Πr³, where r is the radius, we get a diameter for the asteroid of 688 kilometers. The asteroid that possibly wiped out the dinosaurs is thought to have been less than 10 kilometers in diameter.So an asteroid only 1/1000 the mass of the earth is 70 times larger than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. That's why Macavity was hinting to you that, "A meteor big enough to alter earth's orbit might do a wee bit more than just trigger new weather patterns." It would wipe out almost all life on the planet, possibly all of it as it would easily turn an area the size of Alaska into bare magma exposed to the atmosphere - imagine the equivalent of a million Mt. Saint Helen's erupting continuously for thousands of years.In case there's any doubt in your mind about the amount of devastation such an impact would cause, let's go ahead and do some kinetic energy calculations. The kinetic energy of an object is equal to mv²/2, where m is the mass and v is the velocity. If we assume an impact velocity of 20 km/sec, which is fairly typical, then the kinetic energy of our orbit-altering asteroid is over 300,000 times greater than the one that wiped out the dinosaurs (since the velocities of both asteroids are equal we can drop the v² from the comparison and it becomes simply a comparison of mass, which is directly proportional to the cube of their diameters, so the answer is 688³/10³). The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs had energy equal to about a billion (yes, that's billion with a b) Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs, and your orbit-altering asteroid would have an energy 300,000 times greater. That's the energy of 300 trillion Hiroshima bombs.You've been dismissing points with mere handwaves based upon personal incredulity underpinned by your own ignorance of all matters scientific. You shouldn't be doing this. The forum guidelines request that you address points in a substantive way by supporting your assertions with evidence. No one expects a silly and obsessive adherence to the guidelines, but neither should one make a steady diet of violating them.It's just been shown to you mathematically that an asteroid big enough to alter the earth's orbit would be devastating, certainly an extinction event for most species larger than bacteria. I went through the math showing that you're dead wrong so you wouldn't be able to reply with a handwave. TC has taught me clairvoyance, and I predict you'll simply again reply with a handwave that I couldn't possibly know what I just showed you. But please resist this temptation and follow the forum guidelines. Are you aware that there's a long history going back at least a thousand years of religious groups claiming that the Bible prophesied the events of their era? And using many of the same Biblical passages that you're using? We've been through this before. In science, theories are never proven. Some theories are more strongly supported by the available evidence, but no theory ever becomes so strongly supported that it becomes a fact. Saying "imo" in this context is nonsensical - the concept of a scientific theory already has a definition, you can't go making up your own. And what term should one apply to someone who replies to reasoned and evidence-supported argument with the term, "HOGWASH." Ignoramus comes to mind. You said previously that you were going to study my earlier reply, and part of it bore directly on this issue of ancient evidence. You repeatedly begged me to reply to you, I finally replied, but the information but just went in one ear and out the other, I guess.Evidence that has survived to the present, no matter how old, is still evidence. There's that "imo" again. Your opinion is irrelevant in the face of your inability to produce a single shred of evidence for the flood. But Ballard dates his findings to about 8000 years ago, which predates the flood and the creation. If Ballard is correct then it calls into question the events of Genesis, since he found no evidence of either a global flood or a young earth, but plenty of evidence for a local flood and an ancient earth. If Ballard is correct then it contradicts the generations of Luke and Matthew in the gospels, since there must be many, many missing generations to fill the extra couple thousands years between Adam and Jesus. And sea fossils found in the Rockies and the Himalayas date to millions of years ago, not the 8000 years ago found by Ballard, so Ballard's flood and the deposit of the fossils can't possibly be contemporaneous events. Except that no it doesn't. People have been telling you the many ways the Bible doesn't fit, and all your replies have basically been, "Oh, hogwash, I just can't believe that." I guess since you've got God and the Bible on your side you don't need rational argument or evidence. Science is the study of the natural world. What you're doing is religion.--Percy

quote:

---

Imo, nothing like our day. Ozone problems never before, etc.

---

Of course, you don't really know much about our planet's past climates do you? Have you looked into any of the evidence? There are a lot of people working on this issue.Considering that we just started monitoring ozone in 1956 or so, we don't really know what is normal.

quote:

---

Believe me, the world hasn't been so sparcly populated for a loooooong time that biggy tornadoes would go un-noticed and unmentioned.

---

I am talking about communication and accurate data gathering, not population.

quote:

---

They're so common place today that most are only reported in the nations and areas where they occur.

---

So? If this is the case the information ought to be out there. Have you checked? Or do you just assume?

quote:

---

We hear little to nothing abour tornadoes in Africa, but if they're happening here they gotta be happening over there too.

---

This makes no sense at all. The fact that a tornado occurs in Texas does not mean that a tornado must also occur in Canada, or China, or anywhere else.

quote:

---

It's floods, fires and much more.

---

And lions and tigers and bears, oh my!History is full of this stuff. You have to do more than claim that more disasters are happening now than ever. You have to back it up. One major obstacle is that what happened in the past was recorded haphazardly. You can't compare what was written by a single Roman writer living in Greece, say, with what was written by a writer with access to a global database.

quote:

---

If you were around 300 years ago, you wouldn't see voices and pictures flying through space originating in Seattle to be almost instantly landing in another's living room in a little box in NY either would you?

---

So? Three hundred years ago we could not have known these things were going to come about either. But this is just a diversion...

quote:

---

Did I say forest fires are abnormal??

---

I don't think you realize how frequent forest fires were prior to our efforts to put them out.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com