Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[YoursTrue]

Exactly. So fossil evidence does not support noah.s globwl flood at c. 3000 bce.

Now that you mention it, according to the account, lots of people died. Bones by now. Maybe.

 

[gnostic]

What makes you think that before the Deluge there were not cities and empires that had already been created after the creation of Adam and Eve?

Gen. 4:17 Afterward Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Then he engaged in building a city and named the city after his son Enoch.
18 Later Irad was born to Enoch. And Irad became father to Mehujael, and Mehujael became father to Methushael, and Methushael became father to Lamech.
19 Lamech took two wives for himself. The name of the first was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah.
20 Adah gave birth to Jabal. He was the founder of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the founder of all those who play the harp and the pipe.
22 Also, Zillah gave birth to Tubal-cain, who forged every sort of tool of copper and iron.
And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Even the names of people and cities, as well as the progress of civilization, are outlined here as known from the oldest archaeological documents.

Imagine that your family has a family diary that goes back 2,000 years and in which even today, your family still writes. Would you deny what your relatives wrote in ancient times for their descendants today?

Sorry, but the creation of Adam points to about 6000 years, that's about 4000 BCE.

Neolithic people not only started to grow their own food through farming as far back as 11,600 years (9600 BCE), but started animal husbandry (animal domestication of cattle and herds) roughly around the same time, largely because the ice sheets have retreated, and droughts have ended, allowing for permanent sedentary settlements.

The point that descendants of Adam and Cain not only don't exist, they didn't start farming and animal husbandry.

And there are certainly no city by the name of Enoch.

Even here, a number of Neolithic towns have been found, including that of the site of Tell es-Sultan, where a number of ancient settlements were successively build on top of older settlements, the site being ancient Jericho. It most likely started as Neolithic villages, as early as 9600 BCE, but about a thousand years later, the population grew large enough for them to built stone-fortified walls (plus a tower) around the town of at least 70 home made of bricks of sun-dried clay and straw. The fortified walls and tower have been dated to about 8300 BCE (or 10,300 years). The point is that fortification is evidence that debunk Adam being the first man or that Cain built a city of Enoch less than 6000 years ago.

But humans, particularly the Homo sapiens, have been over 200,000 years, in Australia, the oldest fossil (near Lake Mungo, NSW) was that 40,000 years ago.

And you won't find dinosaur fossils in the same layer as that of human fossils. All the non-Avian dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago, mainly found in Cretaceous rocks and older (Jurassic and Triassic). These fossils were found below the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) line of rocks, where evidence of iridium exist between two layers of claystone, evidence that the Earth was hit by a large asteroid.

 

[YoursTrue]

...But humans, particularly the Homo sapiens, have been over 200,000 years, in Australia, the oldest fossil (near Lake Mungo, NSW) was that 40,000 years ago.

I don't believe that.

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe that.

That's ok. I understand that you don't want to believe.

You have never care about physical evidence that contradict your belief in the Bible. As I said, previously, you are anti-science person.

Evidence isn't about what one believe or what one preferred. I don't care about what you believe or what you like or don't like, but you are showing clear sign that you are also science illiterate. That's your choice.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's ok. I understand that you don't want to believe.

You have never care about physical evidence that contradict your belief in the Bible. As I said, previously, you are anti-science person.

Evidence isn't about what one believe or what one preferred. I don't care about what you believe or what you like or don't like, but you are showing clear sign that you are also science illiterate. That's your choice.

Because you can't prove what you believe you call me antiscience. That's not true, but there are some things I do not ascribe to and -- I see no proof of what you call science in that aspect.

 

[YoursTrue]

@gnostic again -- Nothing comes from nothing. back to space again. I think at this point it's time to say good night, maybe later --

 

[gnostic]

Because you can't prove what you believe you call me antiscience. That's not true, but there are some things I do not ascribe to and -- I see no proof of what you call science in that aspect.

The anti-science and science illiterate is demonstrate by this post.

You are still talking about "proof", when science don't rely on proofs. Proofs are abstract model that often expresssed in the form of mathematical equations.

Theoretical physicists studying equations. Equations are not evidence.

The equation E = m c^2 is proof, not evidence...equation that explain for the relation between mass and energy, in Special Relativity.

Evidence are anything that can be observed, tested and measured. To get the evidence for Einstein's equation would be to obtained the measurements, such as the mass (m) of the object and to measure the speed of light in a vacuum, which is the constant c.

Equations - or proofs if you to call the equations - don't do that. Scientists do use equations, but the equations are only parts of explanations or parts of the predictions. But just as scientists must test the explanations & predictions, to determine if the hypothesis is science or not science, so must the equations be tested. So the evidence can refute the proofs, which would mean the equations are incorrect.

You have been corrected so many times that scientists used evidence and experiments to verify or to refute a hypothesis. Proofs are not evidence.

Hence, you are science illiterate, because you cannot understand, but worse still, you refused to be corrected. Hence, you are anti-science.

 

[gnostic]

@gnostic again -- Nothing comes from nothing. back to space again. I think at this point it's time to say good night, maybe later --

I haven’t said anything about nothing. So you are spinning strawman.

 

[Eli G]

...Neolithic people not only started to grow their own food through farming as far back as 11,600 years (9600 BCE), but started animal husbandry (animal domestication of cattle and herds) roughly around the same time, largely because the ice sheets have retreated, and droughts have ended, allowing for permanent sedentary settlements. ...

That's what they told you and you believed it. What makes you think that they are not wrong and that there have never actually been humans before Adam and Eve were created according to the Scriptures (not before 4000 BC)?

I decided for too many reasons that what the Bible says is the truth and there is not any real proof of something different.

The archaeological evidence that proves the existence of intelligent human beings does not exceed that date... so everything that has to do with humans themselves and that has been dated before that time is based on mere speculations that seek to contradict what we really have from ancient humans. Those who deny biblical history are inventing a story with invented evidence or erroneous info, instead of that history of which we do have tangible evidence.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Now that you mention it, according to the account, lots of people died. Bones by now. Maybe.

Bones, if we get to the correct place.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's ok. I understand that you don't want to believe.

You have never care about physical evidence that contradict your belief in the Bible. As I said, previously, you are anti-science person.

Evidence isn't about what one believe or what one preferred. I don't care about what you believe or what you like or don't like, but you are showing clear sign that you are also science illiterate. That's your choice.

What's the Difference Between a Fact, a Hypothesis, a Theory, and a Law in Science?

Each word has a specific meaning and not interchangeable.

www.discovery.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Bones, if we get to the correct place.

Let's say that's true in reference to the flood account. What's your take on that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I haven’t said anything about nothing. So you are spinning strawman.

It's the same thing about postulating that something can come from nothing. Scientists do not know when or how eggs started. "No doubt, as long as the phylogenetic relationships among Amniota (especially among Sauropsida) are not resolved, and as long as our knowledge of egg morphology and early development of some taxa remains incomplete, insights and explanations gained from this analysis remain temporary. However, by recognizing gaps in our knowledge, this review provides focus for future research." (They're honest...) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.21380

 

[YoursTrue]

I haven’t said anything about nothing. So you are spinning strawman.

That's true that you haven't said anything about something said by a scientist that purports the universe could have come from nothing. The theory of evolution is based on possibilities that life evolved by natural causes from one, two, or more structures. Still scientists do not "know" how eggs started.

 

[sun rise]

The Greeks had a different flood myth with common elements to Noah. Deucalion, the Greek Equivalent of Noah and the Great Flood

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe that.

Ignoring the facts don't make them disappear.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because you can't prove what you believe you call me antiscience.

The facts are the facts. There is nothing there to "believe", only to accept.
You are anti-science because you prefer your religious beliefs over the scientific facts of reality.

That is your choice. You should live with that choice and own it, instead of being in such denial about it.

That's not true, but there are some things I do not ascribe to and -- I see no proof of what you call science in that aspect.

You say you don't believe humans existed 200.000 years ago.
We point you to bones that are 200.000 years old.
Your response is "i don't believe that".

What else do you expect us to do? Build you a time machine?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@gnostic again -- Nothing comes from nothing. back to space again. I think at this point it's time to say good night, maybe later --

Ginormous moving of the goalposts now.
The topic you were discussing, is humans existing 200.000 years ago

Try and stick to the topic instead of running away from it.

Such pathetic attempts at derailment are yet another piece of evidence of your anti-science stance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's what they told you and you believed it. What makes you think that they are not wrong and that there have never actually been humans before Adam and Eve were created according to the Scriptures (not before 4000 BC)?

Because of objective independently verifiable facts of reality that literally demonstrate humans DID exist 150.000 years ago.

The archaeological evidence that proves the existence of intelligent human beings does not exceed that date...

That is so false that I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence to assume that you aren't just blatantly lying here.
You KNOW this is not true, don't you?

so everything that has to do with humans themselves and that has been dated before that time is based on mere speculations that seek to contradict what we really have from ancient humans.

What I find hilarious is that whenever some archeological artefact, from say Sumer, is dated to suite your religious narrative, you have no problem at all accepting that dating mechanism.

But the second the very same dating method dates other artefacts as being older then something that doesn't suite your religious narrative, then suddenly the dating method is unreliable.

It's just some bad joke, isn't it?

Those who deny biblical history are inventing a story with invented evidence or erroneous info, instead of that history of which we do have tangible evidence.

Those who think that mere beliefs trump the evidence of reality, are just being irrational and extremely gullible and naive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Still scientists do not "know" how eggs started.

Eggs - Evolution and Biology - Quatr.us Study Guides

Egg evolution: from the first cells dividing, to the soft eggs of fish roe, to the hard eggs of reptiles and birds that hold a tiny ocean...

quatr.us

Quite a lot is known about egg evolution.