Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

Well, in the scientific system, there was no global flood at all, so nobody built an arc to survive such.

In a fishbowl, there are no whales either, so? The fishbowl philosophy of so called science cannot cover it. It is groping in the dark, heading the wrong way, not knowing what to look for when.

In your system, there is no way to know there even were people since nothing today can give evidence about the past.

History and Scripture are not a system, they are the record. Your religious system is a racket.

 

[dad1]

And the Tower of Babel?

I am asking because of your claim about writing only became necessary after the Babel incident...


So when do you think Babel happen?

Well, we could look that up, but it was if I recall, centuries after the flood.

 

[dad1]

I usually see that the flood story is a myth or allegory. So, how do we determine the truth of the matter?

You don't. You believe what you chose.

 

[dad1]

All that exists by way of evidence are an unverified account that is wrought with errors and inconsistencies and a bunch of could be's and maybe's that have long been ruled out. The very possibility of a global flood is ruled out by what we know of physics.

There was no physics how could it rule anything out? You claim there was...prove it.

The KT boundary is explained best by the collision of an asteroid with the earth.

Baloney.

Your ideas go against what the flood story says about saving animals. Those that went extinct were not saved in the ark and there isn't even an accounting of dinosaurs on the ark to give you a thread of hope that your speculation has some legs.

Only a few each of the created kinds were saved, the rest died.

 

[Looncall]

The only consilience among the phenomena is that you use your baseless belief in a same state past in each and every one. Religiously. Without fail. Methodically.

Balderdash. There certainly is agreement among these methods. You have failed to address that agreement.

Simply repeating your superstition-based idea is not debating. You must show how your idea explains what is observed. Otherwise, your idea can be justly dismissed as religious mania.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't. You believe what you chose.

In other words, you give up and refuse to believe there is a logical way out. You have thereby eliminated yourself from serious discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

Show one piece of evidence that the past did have the same laws of physics.

There is plenty of *that* out there. But you have to at least agree that the outlines are the same now as then. From that, we can show the basic constants (speed of light, etc) do not change. And the consistency of the current laws with what we see from the past shows the current laws worked far into the past.

 

[Polymath257]

The only consilience among the phenomena is that you use your baseless belief in a same state past in each and every one. Religiously. Without fail. Methodically.

No, it goes way, way beyond that. Different ways of testing are based on different aspects of physical theory and thereby are able to test each other.

And yes, the past had a state similar to what we see today: the same basic laws of physics applied. If you deny that, and allow for *anything*, there is no possible knowledge of the past.

 

[Polymath257]

In a fishbowl, there are no whales either, so? The fishbowl philosophy of so called science cannot cover it. It is groping in the dark, heading the wrong way, not knowing what to look for when.

No, it is perfectly able to handle floods in the past. It has *discovered* many of them. Just no global flood.

History and Scripture are not a system, they are the record. Your religious system is a racket.

Scripture is a record of the superstitions believed in the past. History is a way of looking at the records from the past and figuring out what really happened, in spite of the biases of the writers in the past.

 

[Polymath257]

There was no physics how could it rule anything out? You claim there was...prove it.

If there was no physics, there was no past, and thereby no humans (Noah) or a flood. Since literally *anything* could happen, you are, in essence, promoting Last Thursdayism (or a version of the Matrix).

Reasonable people don't go down your path.

 

[gnostic]

Awesome information.

The origin from the Gilgamesh story has long been the most likely source of the biblical flood story. It makes the most sense and as you note, the connections are numerous as well as the many shared elements. Like the creation story, there is evidence that different versions of what was probably oral tradition were transcribed and fused into what ended up in the Bible.

Your information helps very much. My current knowledge is based around the story of George Smith who rediscovered the story of Gilgamesh in the 1870's. You have expanded my sources markedly here. Thanks again.

I'm glad that you have found the information useful.

I think a lot of people fail to understand, that the ancient Israelites from the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, were not isolated nations, because it was gateway between east (Babylonia, Assyria, Persia) and west (Egypt, Greece).

It really shouldn't be all that surprising the stories of Mesopotamia and Egypt might their ways in the Levant.

Even ancient Canaanite and Ugaritic deities found their ways into Egypt and Mesopotamia, during the Bronze Age. Goddesses, like Astarte and Anat were popular and worshipped in Egypt, during the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom period.

 

[dad1]

Balderdash. There certainly is agreement among these methods. You have failed to address that agreement.

The agreement is after believing that the tree rings/corals/radioactive decay/etc all happened in this nature. FIRST you need to prove this nature existed then. Otherwise you are just molesting evidences with the same tired beliefs.

You must show how your idea explains what is observed

Easy. If we have a tree fossil from pre flood with rings, the rings grew fast, unlike today.
Now cut the religious drivel.

 

[dad1]

In other words, you give up and refuse to believe there is a logical way out.

Out of what?

I am not IN your belief system, so who needs out? You do.

 

[dad1]

No, it is perfectly able to handle floods in the past.

Completely false. Science assumes that rapid continental separation/mountain building/worldwide volcanic activity, and etc were slow and all in a same state past. Therefore if much of the pre flood world was ploughed under, they would not know what to look for. They assume uniformity. They are so steeped in their baseless belief system they can't see the forest for the trees.

Scripture is a record of the superstitions believed in the past.

You are a record of superstitions believed in the present!

History is a way of looking at the records from the past and figuring out what really happened,

No, it is a written record of what went down.

in spite of the biases of the writers in the past.

Your opinion is biased and baseless.

 

[dad1]

If there was no physics, there was no past,

Dirrerent laws does not mean no laws. Gong!

and thereby no humans (Noah) or a flood. Since literally *anything* could happen, you are, in essence, promoting Last Thursdayism (or a version of the Matrix).

Sour grapes. You're just sore that you have no proof for your claimed state in the past.

Reasonable people don't go down your path.

Pretending you know what they would do won't help you.

 

[Sapiens]

Dirrerent laws does not mean no laws. Gong!

Sour grapes. You're just sore that you have no proof for your claimed state in the past.
Pretending you know what they would do won't help you.

You are serving up pablum and pretending it is steak, everyone can see that, for some reason ... except you.

 

[Polymath257]

Dirrerent laws does not mean no laws. Gong!

Sour grapes. You're just sore that you have no proof for your claimed state in the past.
Pretending you know what they would do won't help you.

But you cannot know what those laws are, so there is little difference. We cannot know *anything* if you don't allow the present to give information about the past.

 

[Polymath257]

The agreement is after believing that the tree rings/corals/radioactive decay/etc all happened in this nature. FIRST you need to prove this nature existed then. Otherwise you are just molesting evidences with the same tired beliefs.

Easy. If we have a tree fossil from pre flood with rings, the rings grew fast, unlike today.
Now cut the religious drivel.

Prove, given your position, that there were trees then.

 

[Polymath257]

Out of what?

I am not IN your belief system, so who needs out? You do.

I have a logical way out: use present physical laws to interpret the past. *You* have a severe problem because you *cannot* know how to interpret anything from the past.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Completely false. Science assumes that rapid continental separation/mountain building/worldwide volcanic activity, and etc were slow and all in a same state past. Therefore if much of the pre flood world was ploughed under, they would not know what to look for. They assume uniformity. They are so steeped in their baseless belief system they can't see the forest for the trees.

You are a record of superstitions believed in the present!
No, it is a written record of what went down.
Your opinion is biased and baseless.

What reason do we have to believe that everything worked entirely differently in the past, as you seem to claim? Please show your work.