The flood happened around the younger dryas period

Fredcow9 · May 28, 2020

Dan From Smithville said:
Scientists are not running from floods. There is no evidence that supports a global flood at anytime during the last 65 million years. There is much evidence that would not exist if there had been a global flood. It is wishful thinking by belief-based thinkers to falsely portray scientists as running from claims of a global flood. In my experience in discussions about a global flood, it is the claimants that run from the evidence and to any wishy washy, half-baked conjecture that some pseudoscience guru throws up as fact.

Hahaha of course they are! Do you know how many educations become inept because of all this? Just consider yourself one of the people that doubted Harley Bretz for almost 40 years when he was finally proven right about dry falls being proof of flood activity. The quote below sums it up perfectly and its clearly related to experience most scientist are too lazy to pursue
“As they took in the sight of the falls and the canyon, Gilluly was dumbfounded by their scale. “Gilluly was just quiet the whole time,” Baker said, “and as they were leaving, he broke out into this immense laugh and said, ‘How could anybody be so wrong?’” After resisting Bretz’s theory for decades, simply seeing the landscape with his own eyes had changed his mind.”
Formed by Megafloods, This Place Fooled Scientists for Decades
on top of this Shermer regrets calling Graham a pseudoscientist so go back to the drawing board and learn more of the topic before getting involved

Fredcow9 · May 28, 2020

gnostic said:
Just reminder, @Terry Sampson

The last Ice Age - the Quaternary Glaciation - although ice sheets covered large regions in the northern hemisphere, even more regions never saw any ice sheets.

And some areas, like the Swiss and Italian Alps, the Caucasus mountains, the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau, the Andes were covered in ice sheets, however the lands surrounding these high lands, show no evidence there were ice sheets.

So the Earth wasn’t a Snowball Earth. There were more severe and more global glaciation during the Precambrian eras, that were causes of mass extinction events - the Huronian Glaciation and the Cyrogenian.

So the Quaternary Glaciation wasn’t even a mass extinction event...

...HOWEVER, even areas that weren’t covered by ice sheets, it did effect the world globally, because many regions were cooler and drier, causing severe droughts, and droughts often lead to famines.

Which is why humans of the late Pleistocene epoch not trapped by thick ices, still have to nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyle, never staying in places too long.

I am not convinced by @Fredcow9’s claims about the meteor impacts from Younger Dryas causing global flood or multiple floods responsible for Noah’s Flood.

For one, the Younger Dryas occurred between 13,500 and 11,000 years ago, whereas calculating the Genesis genealogy, put the date roughly about 4300 to 4400 years mark (or 2400 to 2300 BCE).

The Younger Dryas is too far back in time (at least about 6000 years earlier), to have cause Noah’s Flood.

For another, there were never any evidence of global flooding in human history. Not geological evidence, not archaeological evidence.

Prove to me here the Genesis geology bars any amount of years between today and the flood

Fredcow9 · May 28, 2020

Native said:
At least try to quote correctly when replying.
I said:
"The cultural Global Flood Myth is closely connected to soon after the global Stories of Creation".

AFTER in the biblical creation, the Flood was said to come over humans as a divine revenge, so the immediate connection is of course correct enough.

Yes, it is thought to be a "twice creation of the Earth", but this is a misinterpretation of the creation myth which really speaks of "soil/mud/clay" as the first firm matter in the creation, but this is scholarly misinterpreted to be the planet Earth which of course isn´t the first to be created.

I don´t care at all about your emotional and subjective expressions.

I´m only trying here to explain the Flood Myth in a logical way based on my insight in ancient Myths of Creation and its astronomical and cosmological meanings and implications.

Again I am affirming that no, they are not too close to the creation at all and it would be on you to even prove such a statement thats not even a mainstream view.

Already I can tell you haven't even familiarized yourself with any material regarding the flood, it has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with utter lawlessness and mass violence. The thoughts of man were evil CONTINUOUSLY. This in itself though has nothing to do with anything.

I’m more than happy to explain the creation to you and it has nothing to do with what you described at all

Terry Sampson · May 28, 2020

gnostic said:
I am hoping you are more like me, than like dad or Deeje.

A little closer to you. They're on my "Ignore" list.

ecco · May 29, 2020

Nowhere Man said:
That is the ultimate disgrace to the coffee gods!!!!

Anyone who takes a coffee enema should be excommunicated immediately!

It is the elixir of the Gods you're talking about and needs to be taken with extreme reverence, either black, sugar and/or cream, and once consumed it will become holy and thus consecrated enough to make an offering at the sacrificial ceramic bowl or any holy designated ground surrounded by natural bushes trees and foliage.

Amen

You make the argument that using coffee as an enema is sacrilegious. Yes. Then you turn around and promote adulterating coffee with sugar and/or cream. FOR SHAME!

ecco · May 29, 2020

Fredcow9 said:
At least a global flood and descending from Noah makes sense. Why else do we even have all these flood stories in entirely different areas of the earth? Sure the milkyway is cool but EVERYONE could just look up and see it. You had to either witness or hear about the flood.

If, as you suggest, everyone descended from Noah, only eight people witnessed the flood. These eight people were then the entire breeding stock for the human race. That means that there was a lot of incestuous inbreeding.

Perhaps you like to believe you are the product of such incestuous inbreeding. I believe I am the descendant of tens of thousands of years of nature culling the dumbest and weakest.

ecco · May 29, 2020

Fredcow9 said:
... And because scientists are first and foremost human beings, they’re loathe to change their theories or their minds because of mere data.”
...
the problem is that scientists run anytime a “flood” is mentioned because it might give credence to Religion.

Nonsense.

Bretz: The area was shaped by a massive flood.
Establishment: Where did the water come from?
Bretz: Uh, I don't know.
Establishment: Get back to us when you figure it out.

Once a source and a cause of the flooding was discovered, the establishment had no problem accepting it.

It's very telling that some people still try to use the scablands as an example of bad-anti-religion-atheist science.

ecco · May 29, 2020

Fredcow9 said:
I really can’t explain this as well as you can just see it during this exchange:

Do you really expect anyone to watch a 3 1/2 video to see where you make your point? Really?

Perhaps you should watch it and point out the applicable time segments. Oh, wait. I'm sorry, now I'm asking you to watch a 3 1/2 video - and make notes! My bad.

ChristineM · May 29, 2020

ecco said:
And yet, thanks to RF, we can all do it for free.

Now if someone could just tell us the right temperature for the coffee enema, I'd be one happy person.

About 37 to 38 c, around 100 f

SkepticThinker · May 29, 2020

Fredcow9 said:
Check out his debate with Zahi Hawass. Youll see how eager they are to debate it

If he has evidence for his claims, he needs to submit it for peer review and have it published and scrutinized. That's how it's done. If he has good evidence, it may even become accepted.
Declaring something in a debate doesn't amount to a whole lot of anything.

Dan From Smithville · May 29, 2020

Fredcow9 said:
Hahaha of course they are!

Hahaha, of course they are not.

Fredcow9 said:
Do you know how many educations become inept because of all this?

I do not even know what you mean here. Can you clarify it?

Fredcow9 said:
Just consider yourself one of the people that doubted Harley Bretz for almost 40 years when he was finally proven right about dry falls being proof of flood activity. The quote below sums it up perfectly and its clearly related to experience most scientist are too lazy to pursue
“As they took in the sight of the falls and the canyon, Gilluly was dumbfounded by their scale. “Gilluly was just quiet the whole time,” Baker said, “and as they were leaving, he broke out into this immense laugh and said, ‘How could anybody be so wrong?’” After resisting Bretz’s theory for decades, simply seeing the landscape with his own eyes had changed his mind.”

That some ideas take time to become accepted in science is not unusual, but it does not mean that every baseless claim, pseudoscience and fantastic conjecture preached as fact is some hidden truth.

This is just, "Hey, we found a scientist that actually found something that was not recognized for a long time. Therefore we can use that as some sort of evidence for anything we make up".

Fredcow9 said:
Formed by Megafloods, This Place Fooled Scientists for Decades
on top of this Shermer regrets calling Graham a pseudoscientist so go back to the drawing board and learn more of the topic before getting involved

By all I have read, Graham is a pseudoscientist. You have done nothing to show that he is not. I suppose I could post some reciprocal dismissive and condescending response, but instead I will wait to see your arguments and evidence supporting your claims.

Native · May 30, 2020

Fredcow9 said:
Again I am affirming that no, they are not too close to the creation at all and it would be on you to even prove such a statement thats not even a mainstream view.

Quote from - Flood myth - Wikipedia
"In the Book of Genesis (c. 6th century BC) the god Yahweh, who created man out of the dust of the ground, decides to flood the earth because of the sinful state of mankind. It is also Yahweh who then gives the protagonist Noah instructions to build an ark in order to preserve human and animal life. When the ark is completed, Noah, his family, and representatives of all the animals of the earth are called upon to enter the ark. When the destructive flood begins, all life outside of the ark perishes. After the waters recede, all those aboard the ark disembark and have Yahweh's promise that he will never judge the earth with a flood again. He causes a rainbow to form as the sign of this promise".

Do you deny the narrative in this biblical quote?

I said earlier:
"AFTER in the biblical creation, the Flood was said to come over humans as a divine revenge, so the immediate connection is of course correct enough".

Fredcow9 said:
Already I can tell you haven't even familiarized yourself with any material regarding the flood, it has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with utter lawlessness and mass violence.

Where did I say that? I said: " . . . the Flood was said to come over humans as a divine revenge".

In a funny backwards way you confirm my own perception of the mythical Flood. I´ve never stated the Flood to be "a divine revenge". I was just referring to the scholarly understanding of the myth and the order of the Creation and what was tought to happen afterwards.

Fredcow9 said:
I’m more than happy to explain the creation to you and it has nothing to do with what you described at all

Well, now, after you´ve misunderstood me a couple of times, feel welcome to post your personal Story of Creation.

ecco · May 30, 2020

ChristineM said:
About 37 to 38 c, around 100 f

Thank you.

ETA: That was wonderful.

ChristineM · May 30, 2020

ecco said:
Thank you.

ETA: That was wonderful.

Don't thank me, coffee enemas are not my cup of tea ;-). Saw your post and Googled it for curiosity

gnostic · Jun 2, 2020

Fredcow9 said:
Prove to me here the Genesis geology bars any amount of years between today and the flood

Sorry, but what geology does Genesis explain?

The only numbers that Genesis provide the years for the Genesis genealogy of the patriarchs (Genesis 5, 9:29, 11:10-32).

Based on the Hebrew source - the Masoretic Text, in which most English translations used (eg KJV, NIV, NRSV, NASB, NJPS, etc) - calculated the date of the Flood to 1656 years (when Noah was 600 years old, Gen 7:6) after the creation of Adam. 1656 AM (Anno Mundi meaning (I’m paraphrasing) years after Adam’s creation) is also the same year, Methuselah died.

The number of years between Flood and birth of Abram (Abraham) is calculated to 292 years (Abram’s birth 1948 AM).

But that’s from Masoretic Text as the Hebrew source. We cannot rely on Genesis from the Dead Sea Scrolls, because Genesis 5 only survived in fragment, and Genesis 11 is completely missing.

And in the Greek Septuagint - from the Codex Vaticanus manuscript - these dates are completely different.

So according to calculations of the Septuagint, Flood occurred in 2242 AM, Methuselah’s death in 2256 AM and Abram’s birth in 3314 AM.

As you can see, the Septuagint version of Methuselah say that this patriarch survived the flood by 14 years, so there was really 9 survivors, not eight!

And the gap between flood and Abram’s birth 1072 years, not the Masoretic’s 292 years gap!

The Samaritan Torah gives yet, more different dates to the Flood and Abram’s death.

So how does one determine which of these sources (eg Septuagint, Masoretic Text or Samaritan Torah) is the correct one, given the contradiction in dates?

Apart from Genesis saying that god created dry land on the 3rd day, it speak of nothing about what rocks make up the composition of the Earth’s CRUST, nothing about the strata, nothing about the motion of plate tectonics, nothing about seismic activities or volcanic activities, and so many other things relating to geology or to Earth Science.

In another words, how do you justify the Bible being science textbook, when Genesis is very vague on the detail and explain nothing scientifically.

The Bible, or what you called “Old Testament”, is collection of books on theology - books of faith, containing various texts allegories and wisdoms for the Jews, and traditional narratives of Jewish origins, eg the 3 patriarchs of Genesis, origin of laws and covenant and origin of their nation.

The Genesis’ worth is its tales of moral meanings and man’s relationship to God, not in historicity and and it is certainly isn’t science.

I am not saying that the whole Bible is a complete myth. Some parts do have historical values, but most of these historicity are found in the books of Kings, not in Genesis or other books attributed to Moses.

gnostic · Jun 3, 2020

Fredcow9 said:
Sorry I should have been a bit more orderly with the post

Here is an article explaining at the time the mounting evidence for multiple impacts around the same time
We Just Got More Evidence a Large Meteorite Smashed Into Earth 12,800 Years Ago

This was the most recent thing to come out
Evidence of Cosmic Impact at Abu Hureyra, Syria at the Younger Dryas Onset (~12.8 ka): High-temperature melting at >2200â€‰Â°C | Scientific Reports

Hancock is no a pseudo scientist. Many of the things he has co-signed are simply going to undue decades of our understanding of humanity (from a naturalistic perspective anyway). His ideas clovis first were ridiculed for years until the idea was proved bogus. All I’m saying is even if you don’t like the man well look at whatever evidence hes putting up and judge that.

I don’t agree with everything he says but it’s extremely obvious entire careers of archaeologist will be wasted if this is all the case. Zahi Hawass is a prime example of how academia is treating it

Hancock have no background in science or in archaeology.

Before he started writing his pseudoscience crap books, he was newspaper journalist, his qualifications were in journalism.

It is funny how a lot of creationists and conspiracy theory nuts warned us not to trust mass media journalism, and yet you like them, have done exactly that, trusting Hancock, who is essentially a journalist.

Creationists and conspiracy theorists also tell us, not to trust science because all scientists seek is funding.

Well guess what, fredcow9? All Hancock from you, is your money:

Hancoćk will tell you a whole lot of weird craps, so you would give him cash!

Sorry, about the rhyming.

There is no doubt that Graham Hancock is a hack and conspiracy theorist.

Native · Jun 3, 2020

gnostic said:
part from Genesis saying that god created dry land on the 3rd day, it speak of nothing about what rocks make up the composition of the Earth’s CRUST, nothing about the strata, nothing about the motion of plate tectonics, nothing about seismic activities or volcanic activities, and so many other things relating to geology or to Earth Science.

This is a very irrelevant argument.

And it also didn´t speak of computers, satellites, Facebook or of this Forum, which wasn´t created in the creation.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 3, 2020

Native said:
This is a very irrelevant argument.

And it also didn´t speak of computers, satellites, Facebook or of this Forum, which wasn´t created in the creation.

Not at all. Many of the points he addresses are claimed by strict biblical creationists to have occurred during or as a result of the flood. Not only are these geologic processes and products not mentioned in the Bible, but based on the evidence did not and could not have occurred over the last 4,000 years as claimed by biblical creationists.

gnostic · Jun 3, 2020

Native said:
This is a very irrelevant argument.

And it also didn´t speak of computers, satellites, Facebook or of this Forum, which wasn´t created in the creation.

Surely you have been here @ RF long enough to know many creationists as well as other theists have argue that the scriptures (eg Bible, Quran, etc) contained elements of modern science (eg spherical Earth, tectonic movements, etc) before scientists discover them in the last couple of centuries?

Some have tried to even interpret a verse or two to indicate the authors knew of the Big Bang cosmology before the 20th century.

Some of these theists tried to twist the passages of their respective scriptures to fit what we know of science today.

And those I have already mentioned are just the few of dozens instances of modern science that they tried to anachronistic links to their scriptures.

Even you, do this itself, when tried to push your own belief on myth, as if the ancients knew more about the Milky Way than modern astronomers.

So yes, my points are very relevant.

Native · Jun 4, 2020

gnostic said:
Surely you have been here @ RF long enough to know many creationists as well as other theists have argue that the scriptures (eg Bible, Quran, etc) contained elements of modern science (eg spherical Earth, tectonic movements, etc) before scientists discover them in the last couple of centuries?

Of course I do. I just reacted on your usual approach of ancient religious and mythical stories: Denying the contents of these and using modern inventions to underline your denials.

You´re methodically in fact no better than the creationists - in a reversed way.

The flood happened around the younger dryas period

Theboy

Theboy

Theboy

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Veteran Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Veteran Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

The Lost One

The Lost One

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

The Lost One

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist