Why we know that there was no global flood.

[Lyndon]

The contention of the biblical account is the flood was caused by a cataclysmic event, Im not sure that the Ice age ended slowly and was not accelerated by some sort of cataclysm. If the event caused more of the ice to melt than present day, the sea level may have gone higher than today before returning to its present level. I'm not saying its a sure thing, but great flood events are in the creation stories of most cultures all over the known world, something happened otherwise the flood stories were all this great big made up coincidence, which is not very scientific.

I'll admit that ice melts quite slowly, as in glaciers, but snow melts much quicker, in fact flooding is a quite common occurrence when winter snow melts, much of the Ice Age climate would have consisted not just of glaciers, but of massive snow buildup.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Calling or implying someone is ignorant is still against the TOS, and you definition was in reply to my post specifically.

Given the definition of 'ignorance' is "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular," one member pointing out to another that s/he lacks knowledge in a particular subject is not against any "TOS."

 

[Subduction Zone]

The contention of the biblical account is the flood was caused by a cataclysmic event, Im not sure that the Ice age ended slowly and was not accelerated by some sort of cataclysm. If the event caused more of the ice to melt than present day, the sea level may have gone higher than today before returning to its present level. I'm not saying its a sure thing, but great flood events are in the creation stories of most cultures all over the known world, something happened otherwise the flood stories were all this great big made up coincidence, which is not very scientific.

Cataclysmic events leave evidence. You should have read the last paper that I linked. And there is not that much similarity in flood stories aside from the basic failed plot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll admit that ice melts quite slowly, as in glaciers, but swnow melt much quicker, in fact flooding is a quite common occurrence when winter snow melts, much of the Ice Age climate would have consisted not just of glaciers, but of massive snow buildup.

The ice age was a massive glaciation. Snow does not last year to year. When buried by other snow it turns to solid ice. I can we that you are sensitive about your lack of knowledge, but you keep displaying it. Also your arguments have dropped to the level of grasping at straws.

Instead of trying to defend the flawed belief in the Noah's Ark myth it would be wiser to ask questions.

ETA: We are all ignorant about some subjects. Having that pointed out is not a personal attack. If I tried to tell a doctor what he was doing wrong he would be justified in calling out my ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me try to save some time. Sea level rise after the last glaciation is well understood. It does not meet the criteria to be a cause to the flood of Noah.

 

[Lyndon]

Can't stop with the insults, can you?? You haven't been around here very long have you, you'll learn the TOS eventually, or get banned trying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't stop with the insults, can you?? You haven't been around here very long have you, you'll learn the TOS eventually, or get banned trying.

What insults?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Correcting someone is not insulting them. Neither is pointing out ignorance. Claiming that someone cannot learn would be an insult. I have assumed that people can learn from their errors.

 

[Lyndon]

FYI calling someone ignorant, no matter how ignorant or not they may be is against the forum TOS, try reading up on them and you'll get less visits from the moderators.

 

[Subduction Zone]

FYI calling someone ignorant, no matter how ignorant or not they may be is against the forum TOS, try reading up on them and you'll get less visits from the moderators.

A staff member seems to disagree with you. How is it an insult? I never implied that you cannot learn, I only pointed out where your knowledge is lacking.

 

[Lyndon]

I have an open mind on the topic, your position as expressed seems to be very narrow. Claiming to know what happened 10,000 years ago is a bit ridiculous, no one really knows exactly what happened, a cataclysmic flood is still in the realm of possibilities IMHO

 

[Lyndon]

A staff member seems to disagree with you. How is it an insult? I never implied that you cannot learn, I only pointed out where your knowledge is lacking.

For your information the TOS states that you cannot attack a person, but only their comments, you can say their comments seem ignorant but you can't say the person is ignorant, like I said read the TOS, you seem to be unaware of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have an open mind on the topic, your position as expressed seems to be very narrow. Claiming to know what happened 10,000 years ago is a bit ridiculous, no one really knows exactly what happened, a cataclysmic flood is still in the realm of possibilities IMHO

Sorry, but you simply do not understand this subject well enough to have an "open mind". And just because you do not know how scientists can understand what happened in the past does not mean that others can't do that.

For example when one claims a cataclysmic flood that tells us that there would be evidence of that flood. When we cannot find evidence that clearly should be there that tells us that event did not happen.

For example if someone claimed that a herd of a thousand buffalo stampeded through his house and yet when someone checks his house out it is pristine that tells us that there was no stampede.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For your information the TOS states that you cannot attack a person, but only their comments, you can say their comments seem ignorant but you can't say the person is ignorant, like I said read the TOS, you seem to be unaware of them.

Once again the staff member that was here seems to disagree. Perhaps you are just being over sensitive. It would be wiser to learn why we know that there was no flood. The evidence is not only from geology. It can be found everywhere. I merely specialize in geology. A biologist could explain how the lack of a universal population bottleneck also blows the story out of the water. An archaeologist could explain how civilizations occurred during all proposed times of the flood. Perhaps you could consider watching the series by Aron Ra, he goes over how quite a few different sciences tell us that there was no flood.

 

[Lyndon]

Your comments have been referred to the moderation staff, decisions are not made by just one moderators opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your comments have been referred to the moderation staff, decisions are not made by just one moderators opinion.

That's fine with me. I could do the same to some of your posts, but I don't think you broke the rules anymore than I did.

By the way if a person had an open mind when corrected that person would acknowledge his error and move on.

You made some errors. I corrected them. Not with just my word, but by referring to sources that explained your errors to you.

Would you care to move the conversation along? The end of the ice age could not be the source of Noah's flood. The changes in sea level were far too slow to be a cause of that event. I can find some more sources if you need them.

 

[Lyndon]

Why do you feel the need to try and force your opinion onto others, not everyone agrees with the scenarios you promote, not all scientists agree on this either. Unfortunately these studies you refer to are really scientific conjecture or theory rather than fact, the actual facts probably will never be known.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you feel the need to try and force your opinion onto others, not everyone agrees with the scenarios you promote, not all scientists agree on this either.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone active in the world of science that disagrees with what I have supplied to you. One might as well argue against gravity. And in case you did not notice the title of this thread should be a clue. Those that believe the flood myth are simply wrong. This thread is about how we know that they are wrong. I do know that when one responds to a thread one is supposed to keep on topic.

If there is evidence to the contrary please present it. So far all that has been presented are terribly ignorant arguments.

 

[Lyndon]

Actually keeping on topic of a thread is not part of the TOS, there are no rules against going off topic, you set out to ridicule belief in a flood, and now you are attempting to silence those that might believe in a flood. You're entitled to your opinions, but unfortunately the jury is still out on whether there was a large enough historical flood, you couldn't possibly supply evidence that there was no great flood 10,000 years ago, so don't get all bent out of shape if not everyone agrees with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually keeping on topic of a thread is not part of the TOS, there are no rules against going off topic, you set out to ridicule people that believe in a flood, and now you are attempting to silence those that might believe in a flood. You're entitled to your opinions, but unfortunately the jury is still out on whether there was a large enough historical flood, you couldn't possibly supply evidence that there was no flood 10,000 years ago, so don't get all bent out of shape if not everyone agrees with you.

Really? It is on most forums. Off topic conversations are often judged to be trolling. And no, I never set out to ridicule people I am merely trying to help people that do not understand the sciences.

And no, the jury is not out. Where did you get that idea from? Only loons that no longer work in the sciences make claims for the flood. And I have offered evidence. If you did not understand it the proper act would have been to ask questions. Instead you made it personal. I still have no animus toward you and I am willing to get back on topic.

Do you understand how your claims about a post ice age flood have been refuted? If not we can go over that in detail.