The Flood

Usher's date for the flood is 1656 years from creation given Usher's date for creation of 4004 BC the date for the flood would then be 2348 BC. The mechanism for the flood was the water vapor canopy and the fountains of the great deep and a planetary flyby or comet . Velecovskey has suggested that at one time the earth may have been a satellite of Saturn ; and this may well be. That the ice age was not coursed immediately by the flood is evident by what happened at Babel. Just before the flood the water vapor canopy collapsed coursed in all probability by a comet or planetary fly by which broke up the water vapor canopy at the time of the flood. If there was an ice planet at this time it fell as rain and not as snow. plus the unleashing of the fountains of the great deep would have coursed the effects of the world wide flood. Now as far as the ice age is concerned the volcanic action after the flood plus cold summers and a planetary fly by at the time of the dispersion this time didn't fall as water but dropped its ice over the celestial poles thereby killing the mammoths. It is my belief that the ice age lasted from 2247 BC until 1500 BC thereby lasting 747 years. This author rejects Oard's mechanism and chronology for the ice age because as far as the author is concerned it is based on uniformitarian thinking where as the astral catastrophism idea fits in with the scripture and there is therefore no need to reject it. It may even have lasted until the final catastrophe of 687 BC which is based on Velekovskey idea and one cannot rule it out . There are Paleolithic/Mesolithic/Neolithic and bronze age remains at the bottom of the north sea plus remains of mammoths. Thus this proves beyond all doubt that Britain became an Island after this catastrophe finally prior to the start of the pre-Roman iron age. The author will state right here and right now that he is a fan and up to a large extent a follower of Velekovskey's and Gunnar Heinsohn's ideas. Editor JohnHXF;

Catasprophism
Some thoughts from Mike Fischer (www.newgeology.com)

Dear John,
Many thanks for taking the time to write a letter with your
views on a number of things.  I could not make out all the
words, but I guess all of us are getting more practice at
typing than lettering these days.  You are indeed on the
way to building a case for your timeline.  As I always say,
one can never have too much supporting evidence,
particularly with controversial proposals.  Regarding the CD,
others as well have wondered what "earlier event" could
have preceded the giant meteorite impact.  I am only
facing the facts that 1) North America apparently overran a
spreading ridge that was already there, and 2) the shape,
make up, and very presence of the protocontinent.  On
the other hand, the starting point of the Hawaii-Emperor
chain in the Pacific starts a little too conveniently at the
place where Alaska spun off to be merely coincidental.
And a recent paper pointed out evidence for numerous
anti-podal effects - where an impact at one point affects
a point on the opposite side of the Earth.  Concerning
the 1961 Radiocarbon report, it is curious that the text
refers to a bone found in 1888, whereas the reports of
Swanscombe Man I have seen on the internet all refer
to skull fragments discovered in the 1930s.  Perhaps
the museum could clear it up.
Mike

P.S. -
It seems to me that Dan Janzen asks some reasonable
questions.  When people have only a few pieces of
evidence to go on, they tend to fill in the blanks with
what they want to see.  But that can make things
interesting too.

Post-Flood Industries

JXF AND V.C.

Vern here is the link I clicked on to get to this page

http://www.genesisflood.blog.com/2010/03/02/revised-flood-charts/

Are you saying that the flood was not Global? I sugest indeed it was. John

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM, john hext-fremlin wrote:

Hi Vern I have come accross one of your papers that alledges that "at least part of the "stone age" had to be Pre-Flood" and in it you sugest that Adam was Palaeolithic ; Cain Neolithic and perhaps Abel Mesolithic. This would make these industries contemporaneoud would it not?

My sugestion is that Adam was a farmer or gardener from the word "Go".

Your dates are rather confusing as I myself would use Ussher's chronology

If you are correct on this then the events can be dated from 4004 BC.

I sugest there could have been no Ice age in antideluvian times as there was a water vapour canopy arround the earth.

Have you read any thing on the supposed Neanderthal/Nephilim from John Denton's paper. It has also been sugested that Fallen angels married into the human race thereby creating the Neanderthal/Nephilim situation.

Please give me your reasons why you thought maybe some of it was post flood. I now know that you place the stone age industries exclusively after the flood from say 2295 BC with the survey teams. We really do need to interact together so we know how each other is getting on with these srudies into the "Stoneage" John

Hi John,

The page you cited was not written by me.  I originally followed Courville in starting the post-Flood age with the Mesolithic.  I have since abandoned that view.  The main reason for regarding Paleolithic as post-Flood is that a lot of these fossils were found in caves.

These caves formed in strata that were laid down by the Genesis Flood (on the Whitcomb-Morris theory), so the caves formed after the Flood.

If the caves formed after the flood, then the fossils in them must be post-Flood as well.

I cannot engage in extended discussion on this because I am still working on writing up the Scopes Trial.  As soon as I'm done with that I'll start working on the Stone Ages.  It'll take a while but I'll interact with your views on the subject as soon as I can get the chance 

Keep up the good work John,

Cordially,

Vern

Post Flood Ice Age?

Hi Darrell we have some problems with the website
> >> www.accuracyingenesis.org who claim there was no post flood ice age
> >> although to be sure I do not aggree. Damien however is in aggreement
> >> with the nonpostflood ice age view. How do we reconsile the two views
> >> John

John,

We can't. They conflict with each other.

Many speculative chronologists have attempted to
extend the chronology of nations back to 3000 or 3200 BC or so by placing
some of history before the 2233 BC date which the ancient
chroniclers say was the time of the founding of Babylon (Babel).

In my opinion they give too much credibility to secular chronology, but
I am sure each has their own rational.

One variation of this is to place at least part of the old kingdom before
the flood. The Ice Age is presumed by most scholars to have happened before
the founding of nations, not during the time of the nations, thus it would be
natural for them to place the Ice Age before their date for the founding of the Nations.

These concepts invariably conflict completely with current YEC theory.
A local flood rather than a global entirely conflicts.
The attributing of artifacts at sites to before the flood conflicts.
The Ice Age before the flood conflicts entirely.

In general, I believe one would have to be in strict disagreement with
most YEC positions in order to hold such positions. Please think it though
and see if you can understand why.



Darrell