It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: purplemer
the flood occurred over a period of time and is recorded in various cultures in different ways. t Youngeer dyras event
you peddle the lie..
The Jews stole the Myth from other cultures. Like Babylonian and Sumerian which came before the Noah Myth. The Myth was created to make the people using it "Gods Special Children
originally posted by: FlyersFan
AGAIN -
How did the Koalas and Kangaroos get from Australia to the Middle East?
How did Noah get a years worth of Euchalyptus and keep it fresh to feed the Koalas?
Eucalyptus Facts
Noahs Flood didn't happen as the Bible claims it did. It simply did not. The younger dryas event easily could have happened. But it's not the Noahs Ark story. Not even close. The Noahs Ark story is a complete fabrication.
We have a global mass flooding event. We have evidence of earlier civilization using megalithic structures. which we cant date often consisting of similar styles of stone work, we have various mythology from all around the world talking about such an event we can trace our civilized history upto the younger dryas - glob leki tepi wasnt that far after the event.. We have a global flooding event...
originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton
Why might I bother? You don't do science, just beliefs.
And what's that got to do with the topic anyway?
originally posted by: daskakik
That is because that is where the OP is looking at it from.
Why are you not refuting the OP instead of those saying the OP is wrong, which you seem to agree with?
originally posted by: cooperton
The global flood account is not contingent on the Jewish account of it.
I like the idea that the Bible puts forth because it insists we are children of this super-consciousness that has a plan for the perpetuity of our existence into the deep frontiers of the mind. Evolutionary narrative implies we're just mutated fish that return to oblivion. I am admittedly biased to the former being true, and am happy to have found what I believe is enough evidence to confirm it to be true.
That is because that is where the OP is looking at it from. Why are you not refuting the OP instead of those saying the OP is wrong, which you seem to agree with?