Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Hope]

I would assume that a single geophysicist knows his stuff less than the thousands of geophysicists, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists and anthropologists who disagree with him, but maybe that's just me.

Could be just you.

Such reasoning backfires when you consider that Darwin himself challenged the current theories of his day, or Galileo, and so on and so forth....the majority is not always right.

A few questions:

- you spoke about the topology of the Earth changing as a result of the Flood. What do they suggest the topology of the Earth was before the Flood? What mechanism do they suggest that led to the topology we see today?

If I remember correctly, it is simply proposed that before the Flood there were only "high hills," but no true mountains, as we know them today. The mechanism suggested for forming today's topography is beyond my ability to explain, so I'll simply refer this bit to you, from the site of the geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner:

My conclusion is that the Flood was one facet of a larger global-scale tectonic cataclysm. A key aspect of this catastrophe was the rapid sinking, in conveyor belt fashion, of the pre-Flood ocean tectonic plates into the earth's interior. The energy required for the process was derived from the earth's gravity acting on the excess weight of these cold ocean plates relative to the hotter and less dense mantle rock into which they slid. Decades of laboratory experiments attest to the fact that, under stress, mantle rock, at temperatures estimated for the earth's interior, can weaken by factors of billions or more. My work on this problem has primarily involved computer experiments that apply the properties of silicate rock, as measured in these laboratory experiments, to the setting of the earth's mantle. These calculations demonstrate that a catastrophic instability can indeed occur in a planet with the size and structure of the earth. This mechanism for the Flood cataclysm has become known as catastrophic plate tectonics

- the diameter of the Earth at the equator is 12,756.32 km. The diameter at the poles is slightly less: 12,715.43 km. If you were to assume that the Earth was a perfect sphere with the smaller diameter, it would still take 15,238,256 cubic kilometers of water to cover the surface to a depth of 3 meters (assumed arbitrarily but conservatively as the minimum depth that would kill all tall animals). Even for this lower limit, that's too much water to just come from aquifers. Where did all the water come from, and where did it go?

There was rain in addition to what came from the ground. This must also be taken into consideration.

 

[lamplighter]

But rain doesn't just simply appear without a source of water to draw from, if the climate did not change and all the water from the oceans was used to make rain, the only thing that would happen would be that oceans get filled back up again. You would have to use the stores of water in the polar caps to cause a global flooding, but considering how far back the ice samples go taken from the polar regions, there is no reason to believe that the caps ever melted enough to cause a world flood not too mention the destruction to all the aquatic life cause by this, most notably the fresh water marine life as it would be destroyed since the dead sea is probably more than enough to raise the salinity of the water to that of the oceans in a global flood event and marine life that depends heavily upon the interaction that occurs when fresh water comes in contact with saltwater.

 

[jwu]

Skeletons and mummies of giant humans have been found. Some up to 20 feet tall. I've seen photos, and they absolutely stunned me.

Could you provide references? I know that at least one famous giant skeleton picture is a fake, it was made specifically for an adobe photoshop contest

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Could you provide references? I know that at least one famous giant skeleton picture is a fake, it was made specifically for an adobe photoshop contest

Don't you dare barge into a debate asking for evidence. Who do you think you are? :slap:


(Good post!)

 

[anders]

Skeletons and mummies of giant humans have been found. Some up to 20 feet tall. I've seen photos, and they absolutely stunned me.

Do you have anything better than the Cardiff Giant?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you have anything better than the Cardiff Giant?

Yes - a less than charming gullibility that dwarfs the most giant of hoaxes.

 

[Autodidact]

Hope:
Unfortunately I do not have time to post the thoughtful reply that you deserve, so I'll just dash off a few quick thoughts.

1. Hope: I think it's really impressive that they have a geo-physicist at AIG.
9/10: Well, I can cite you 10,000 geophysicists who think he's wrong.
Hope: That doesn't mean anything.

This kind of "Heads I win, tails you lose" inconsistent argument makes the reader suspect that you are not really open to the evidence, just grabbing at any straw that supports your pre-existing opinion. Do you see how unfair and inconsistent this argument was? One geophysicist is impressive if he agrees with you, but 10,000 mean nothing, if they don't.

2. When scientists compute the amount of water on earth, they include that in the atmosphere, that is, rain. There is no additional water. We know pretty well how much water there is under the earth, on the earth, and above the earth, and it isn't enough to flood the entire earth.

3. Yes, it's possible that Baumgardner is right and all the geology departments in all the universities are wrong. It's possible that he's going to turn the scientific paradigm around and ignite a revolution. But, and this is a big but, he hasn't done it. At this point he's just one lone crackpot who hasn't established anything, just making up assertions and just-so stories to bolster his pre-existing beliefs. If he wants to overturn existing scientific thought, he's got a long way to go. He has to dig up the EVIDENCE to support his position. He has to use his theory to make predictions, and those predictions have to be confirmed. Until he does that, it's not knowledge, not an accepted theory, it's just speculation. The theory that the earth is 4.56 billion years old has done this.

Remember, there was an existing paradigm, and it was Baumgardner's. All the geologists, good Christians all of them, knew the earth was 6000 years old and there had been a flood, because the Bible said so. Then they started noticing that the rocks didn't support that. That paradigm was overturned 200 years ago by the evidence and a lot of good science. And here's what doesn't happen in science: paradigms don't get reversed back again.

4. I'm sorry, but those skeletons of giants you may have heard of are hoaxes. Bring me a specific example and I'll Google and debunk it for you. There have never been any actual human giant skeletons.

5. re: Out of place artifacts. Would you pick one or two that you think support the flood hypothesis in particular? A lot of these things come from people pushing eccentric theories like alien seeding of civilization and the like, so I can't tell which one(s) you are asserting support the flood idea.

When I have time, I'll try to gather a list of the many reasons that scientists know without a doubt that there has never been a worldwide flood, but I don't have time right now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Such reasoning backfires when you consider that Darwin himself challenged the current theories of his day, or Galileo, and so on and so forth....the majority is not always right.

Ah... the "they laughed at Darwin" line of reasoning. The only problem is that they laughed at Gene Ray, too.

It's hard to tell whether your rebel theorists are crackpots or visionaries until they back up their claims with actual evidence.

The majority may sometimes get it wrong, but it's got a better track record than the minority.

 

[Hope]

Do you have anything better than the Cardiff Giant?

I've never even heard of the Cardiff Giant.

First, here is an interesting article regarding giant remains:

According to a news report by a Russian newspaper Prauda on Dec. 1, 2005, a group of Russian scientists lead by Ernst Muldashev has been investigating the existence of giants in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt since the beginning of 2005 and made major discoveries. Russian researchers have reportedly discovered the footprints of giants in Syria and even graves of gigantic people.

Ernst Muldashev gave several examples of giants' graves that the team has found. One is the grave of Abel, located in the vicinity of Damascus, the capital of Syria. The grave was about 6 meters long and 1.8 meters wide. There are many giant's graves in other places of Syria, and one of which was alleged to be the grave of a 7.5-meter man.

Due to objections from local residents based on religious considerations, the investigation was very difficult. However, as treasure diggers have vandalized many ancient graves, the researchers have obtained opportunities to see some of the graves.

The Russian scientists' discovery is not isolated. In both eastern and western cultures, besides legends, there are also many historical records about giants in every nation. Archaeological discovery in recent years have also supported that.

As recorded by Book of Han, someone recommended to Wang Mang, a rebel general, a man three meters tall named Ju Wuba. The Book of Later Han recorded that Emperor Liu Xiu of the Han Dynasty had commanded his army to fight Wang Mang's army led by Ju Wuba and won. In addition, in ancient books such as Records of the Taiping Era and Mengxi Essays, there are also records about giants.

According to June 2, 2005 report of Thai Travel Guide, the Dec. 26, 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean sent an ancient giant to the surface of water. A 3.1-meter giant's body was found in Thailand PP Island. Evidence from multiple archaeological discoveries in America in recent years has shown that giants 3 to 5 meters tall did exist in history.

What's interesting is, besides giants, archaeologists have also discovered that many giant animals existed in the past. BBC.com reported on Dec. 1, 2005, that researchers discovered a giant water scorpion, about 1.6 meters long and 1 meter wide. The investigation shows that it lived more than 330 million years ago.

The earth has had many kinds of civilizations in history, which await humanity's further explorations.

References:
(1) Russian researchers discover giants' graves in Syria: http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/16560_giants.html
(2) Rock marks record water scorpion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4486830.stm

An interesting youtube video regarding giants. Can anyone explain the massive stones at the ruins of Baalbek in the Middle East outside of the possibility of giants or some ancient technology? The size of these things is monstrous.

YouTube - evidence for giants nephilim rephaim anunaki part 1

 

[Hope]

Some photos.

The first is of a 12-foot tall mummy found in Ireland. The others are of modern day people with six digits on their hands and feet, and double rows of teeth, which are characteristics found in many giant remains around the world. As we all know, the most famous giant, Goliath, possessed the six-digit anomoly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As we all know, the most famous giant, Goliath, possessed the six-digit anomoly.

How big do you think Goliath was, Hope?

 

[Hope]

4. I'm sorry, but those skeletons of giants you may have heard of are hoaxes. Bring me a specific example and I'll Google and debunk it for you. There have never been any actual human giant skeletons.

Methinks you haven't delved into the subject thoroughly. There are too many findings around the world for all of them to be hoaxes. But if you can debunk any evidence I've provided so far, go for it.

5. re: Out of place artifacts. Would you pick one or two that you think support the flood hypothesis in particular? A lot of these things come from people pushing eccentric theories like alien seeding of civilization and the like, so I can't tell which one(s) you are asserting support the flood idea.

The fact that there are human remains where geologically there shouldn't be any, at least according to a non-Flood, evolutionary timeframe, seems like supportive evidence for a Flood to me.

You can think I'm crazy if you want, ridicule me if you want.....doesn't matter. This weird stuff is out there, and shouldn't be dismissed.

 

[Hope]

How big do you think Goliath was, Hope?

Between 8 and 9 feet tall, probably.

 

[Sunstone]

The fact that there are human remains where geologically there shouldn't be any, at least according to a non-Flood, evolutionary timeframe, seems like supportive evidence for a Flood to me.

What remains and where were they found, please?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As we all know, the most famous giant, Goliath, possessed the six-digit anomoly.

How big do you think Goliath was, Hope?

Between 8 and 9 feet tall, probably.

May I ask why "probably". Why not 6'6" - roughly the size of Michael Jordan? Certainly "between 8 and 9 feet tall" is an extraordinary claim. Have you ever looked into the matter? Again, I'm simply trying to ascertain what the content of "probably" might be in your vocabulary. Thanks.

 

[Hope]

May I ask why "probably". Why not 6'6" - roughly the size of Michael Jordan? Certainly "between 8 and 9 feet tall" is an extraordinary claim. Have you ever looked into the matter? Again, I'm simply trying to ascertain what the content of "probably" might be in your vocabulary. Thanks.

I say "probably" because of the inexact nature of Goliath's measurements. No one has found Goliath's actual bones and all we have to go on is Scripture which says he was 6 cubits and a span. Now, I've heard a cubit is roughly equal to 18 inches and a span is roughly equal to 9 inches or so. So, if these measurements are anywhere close to being correct, then we are looking at a very tall individual, whose height was at least 8 or 9 feet. You also have to look at the context of the story. I highly doubt a 6'6" man would have been that terrifying or imposing to the Israelite army----unless they were midgets. Even their king Saul is described as a tall man, if I remember correctly. So, I challenge you in return----have you looked into the matter? And if so, do you have legitimate reasons for believing Goliath was not an actual giant? I think it's more probable he was than he wasn't.

I also have yet to get any response about the article, video, pics and so forth I posted in regards to giants. I'd especially love to hear others' theories for those gigantic stones found in the Middle East (near or in Lebanon, I believe).

 

[Hope]

What remains and where were they found, please?

See post #399.

 

[Sunstone]

Actually, there are lots of "out of place artifacts."

Here's a sample:

Odd Things in Wrong Places

There's also tons of evidence all over the world of "high technology" possessed by ancient civilizations (like the Egyptians). These people knew stuff that even we don't know. There's also evidence that all these technologically advanced civilizations sprang up around the same time period. In a post-Flood, biblical framework this makes perfect sense. It makes no sense if man evolved from a monkey, over a long period of time.

Skeletons and mummies of giant humans have been found. Some up to 20 feet tall. I've seen photos, and they absolutely stunned me. Suddenly the giants talked about in the Bible, such as Goliath, don't seem so improbable. Why doesn't mainstream archaeology embrace such finds? Or any of the hundreds of "out of place" artifacts?

I know all this stuff may sound crazy or "out there," but ignoring it won't make it go away. The truth is, current theories about human history, and the history of the earth, just don't make sense if every single bit of evidence around the globe is thoroughly examined. I'm not saying the whole theory of evolution is wrong (I'm still on the fence with that), but mainstream science and archaeology has a lot of explaining to do.

See post #399.

Thank you, Hope. But I was hoping for something more specific -- such as something along the lines of "Here's skeleton # 123456789 found in 1947 at site X in layer Y". You know, something as well documented as any scientifically recorded evidence typically is. Surely if there is evidence for your claim that, "The fact that there are human remains where geologically there shouldn't be any, at least according to a non-Flood, evolutionary timeframe, seems like supportive evidence for a Flood to me", then someone has documented that evidence? Even a court of law -- which has lower standards for truth than does genuine science -- thoroughly documents evidence.

 

[Hope]

Thank you, Hope. But I was hoping for something more specific -- such as something along the lines of "Here's skeleton # 123456789 found in 1947 at site X in layer Y". You know, something as well documented as any scientifically recorded evidence typically is. Surely if there is evidence for your claim that, "The fact that there are human remains where geologically there shouldn't be any, at least according to a non-Flood, evolutionary timeframe, seems like supportive evidence for a Flood to me", then someone has documented that evidence? Even a court of law -- which has lower standards for truth than does genuine science -- thoroughly documents evidence.

I understand. I'll see what I can dig up.

Keep in mind, though, that if you are looking for verification by mainstream science/archaeology, you're probably not going to find any, because they are the ones who sweep this stuff aside.

 

[UnTheist]

I understand. I'll see what I can dig up.

Keep in mind, though, that if you are looking for verification by mainstream science/archaeology, you're probably not going to find any, because they are the ones who sweep this stuff aside.

Yes, they like to sweep nonsense aside. It's productive.