"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

reply to post by dusty1

I am sick of hearing armchair scientists blather on and on about evidence that they have never seen for themselves.

At least they bother with evidence...the guys claiming there was a global lood don't even bother with objective evidence. At least no one has bothered to post any in favor of the global flood theory

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
Umm.. you mean like in the article I linked? You read the article, good for you!

Didn't need to read it, I've already learned a bit about horses in North America.

I wonder what wiped out those original horses "8,000 to 10,000 years ago"?

Main theory? Hunting.

Seems really close to the Bibles time line.

Really? And why didn't two survive and come back? I thought Noah prevented all of the species from going extinct.

Well, the modern variant. The pre-European horse population wasn't brought over by ship

How do you know that for certain?

Because ships didn't exist when they migrated over.

Modern horses (and other things) were brought to North America by ships.

That is my point.

Then it's a red herring, as it's irrelevant to this discussion.

It's a ridiculous idea. Deserving of ridicule. Not deserving of respect. I respect people, and even that only goes so far as basic respect unless otherwise earned.

This is where you really look bad, Madness.


Because I point out that the ridiculous is the ridiculous? The truth hurts, learn to live with that.

You get on ATS and goad people into these discussions to mock and ridicule their "stupid" beliefs.

Goad? I post a thread on a website that is clearly titled and has an OP which clearly illustrates my position. I don't provoke anyone, I don't bother to PM people to get them to throw into the discussion.

And I'm not here to mock and ridicule, I'm here to show that the beliefs are wrong. I've done quite a bit of that in here, haven't I?

Grow Up.

Grow up? I'm sorry, but the person that's participating in an ad hominem attack against me is telling me to grow up in the midst of it? Wow.

Are you a scientist?

Not by trade, though I dabble. I've been dabbling in science since I was a child, as my father is a scientist.

Do you perform scientific experiments?

Yes. I perform methodological scientific studies for fun sometimes. Nothing groundbreaking, I just find some simple experiments that I can replicate with my limited resources and do them. Most recently I worked on an experiment involving soil composition as a factor for the growth of certain plants.

Do you implement the scientific method on a daily basis?

Yep.

Do you practice what you preach?

Of course I do.

I am sick of hearing armchair scientists blather on and on about evidence that they have never seen for themselves.

Wow, this is a really long ad hominem attack. Instead of bothering to address my arguments or any of the points anyone is making, you're attacking the character of individuals.

You do realize that I have seen some of this evidence, right? I've seen geologic formations, I've seen archeological sites that are demonstrably older than some creationists claim the Earth is. Hell, I've seen structures that should have clear signs of being destroyed by the global flood.

Or the cultist who thinks Dawkins is their savior.

Which is nobody.

I have respect for you if you are a doer of science.

Well, I am, though only on a recreational basis. I don't bother publishing because I could never afford the resources to create large enough sample sizes and control for enough factors, though I am working on a proposal for an optics study that might garner some funding.

However, I may disagree with interpretation of data.

You have not mentioned any data. The data shows a clear lack of the evidence that would be present were a global flood, especially a flood as described in the Genesis account, had happened. There is no geologic evidence, there is no tree-ring data, there is no global gene-pool bottleneck.

Spare me the unemployed dude who live in his moms flat, with 2 semesters of college biology under his belt, and wants to explain the mysteries of the universe to me.

That two semesters of college biology seems to be beyond what you would have demonstrated an understanding of. Hell, I don't even have any college biology under my belt, I just have a passion for learning about how the universe works.

I don't have all the answers.

You don't have any of the answers. In fact, you have no basis for your claim that a global flood happened beyond the writings of bronze age Middle Easterners.

Guess what? Science doesn't either.

The difference is that scientists are working on the answers, you aren't.

Go invent something.

In the process of doing that actually...actually, I'm working on three inventions right now.

Cure a disease.

Not my field, wouldn't know where to start.

Discover an alternate energy.

This sentence makes no sense...though I do help my father with his renewable energy research.

Oh, no wait, just sit on your fat butt

...I'm skinny. Hell, really skinny. I'm the sort of guy that needs to gain a few.

drinkin' a beer

I don't see any beer. I mean, sometimes I drink a beer while on the computer, but normally I don't.

and ridicule someones "stupid beliefs",

I ridicule them by evidence, not by insult.

and just talk about science..............

Because science is great, you should try some. Hell, if everyone had a better understanding of science, I'm sure the world would be slightly better off, if not immensely. You? You don't even seem to let science enter into the discussion. You haven't even bothered entering into the discussion, you're just insulting people who you don't know.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Because science is great, you should try some.

I do.

Hell, if everyone had a better understanding of science, I'm sure the world would be slightly better off, if not immensely.

I think if people had a better understanding of each other, the world would be better off.

You? You don't even seem to let science enter into the discussion. You haven't even bothered entering into the discussion,

Look in the mirror.

You seem to think that breaking down other posters paragraphs into vowels......

a

like

e

this

...makes for a great show of your scientific prowess.

The truth is I hear you talk about "tons of evidence" or "no evidence" and you post few if any science based links.

you're just insulting people who you don't know.

What exactly are you doing Madness?

You say things like.

"Umm....silly, stupid, ignorance, not deserving of respect"

Please.


But I will say that I wish you the best on your invention.

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Because science is great, you should try some.

I do.

Then try demonstrating something beyond a grade-school understanding of it.

Hell, if everyone had a better understanding of science, I'm sure the world would be slightly better off, if not immensely.

I think if people had a better understanding of each other, the world would be better off.

Both are true. They aren't mutually exclusive, so why the hell are you bringing something entirely unrelated up?

You? You don't even seem to let science enter into the discussion. You haven't even bothered entering into the discussion,

Look in the mirror.

Ah, the Ad hominem via 'I don't like how you write your posts so I'll toss in some hypoerbole with regards to your style', I've become quite used to it.

You seem to think that breaking down other posters paragraphs into vowels......

Which I don't do, I break them down into statements.

a

like

e

this

...makes for a great show of your scientific prowess.

Well, participating in a personal attack on posting style rather than addressing the issues (hell, you haven't bothered addressing issues in the last several posts you made anyway) does nothing to show that you're trying to participate in discussion.

The truth is I hear you talk about "tons of evidence" or "no evidence" and you post few if any science based links.

I post links when they're relevant or requested. Hell, I started the "Evolution: PROVE IT!" thread for the sole purpose of creating a resource on evolution. When I do provide evidence, like by posting two videos that explain the complexities of ship building in a manner that anyone can understand and which explains exactly why Noah's ark as described in Genesis wouldn't have been sea worthy, people such as yourself merely blow it off with ignorant statements.

you're just insulting people who you don't know.

What exactly are you doing Madness?

Well, I don't know about me, but you're not even fessing up to your own insults of others. You called me fat and lazy, that's a direct personal insult.

You say things like.

"Umm....silly, stupid, ignorance, not deserving of respect"

Please.

I feel honored whenever people do this. Quote mining has been used against thinkers much greater than myself, so I feel great that people are giving me the same treatment that the greatest thinkers. This is either a quote mine (most likely) or a fabrication.

Where did you get this quote from? What was the context? Please, provide me with a link to where you got this quote from, as I'd like to see it in its actual context. I do think I wasn't referring to any individual here, as is quite obvious from the grammatical structure of the post. You don't call a person 'ignorance' after all.

But I will say that I wish you the best on your invention.

So you're just not going to bother addressing the thread? I mean, we're supposed to be talking about the flood story, but you've not provided a shred of evidence for what you consider to be a global worldwide deluge.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×10^18 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 361.8×106 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332×109 km3.[96] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

Interesting, so really that water is "still in the system" just distributed differently.

To illustrate: Take a plastic bucket and place several large rocks inside it. Then fill the bucket with sand. You have a bucket full of rocks and sand. Empty the bucket but keep the same sand and rocks.
This time, fill the bucket with the sand first, and then try to place the rocks inside the bucket.
No room? That is because you put the sand in the bucket first. You could pile those remaining rocks on top though and they would be above the plastic bucket.

That is a simple example of how redistribution can work.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Show me a history book, one that is older than the Bible, or shut up.
Dont refer me to the epic of gilgamesh, thats a story.
Dont tell me the necronomican is a history book, because it isnt.

I said the Bible was the oldest history book that we have and you clowns jump right up and say there are older texts.
I didnt say the Bible was the oldest text, I said it is the oldest 'history' book that we have.

Read, research, rethink.
You two are so quick to defend your beliefs that you totally ignore what I wrote.

what makes you think the bible is more of a history book than gilgamesh. both give us glimpses into past life, both are sacre texts and both held in very high esteem. just because one of these books does not presribe to your method of thinking means nothing in the great scheme of things..

kx

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by dusty1

 

I am sick of hearing armchair scientists blather on and on about evidence that they have never seen for themselves.

At least they bother with evidence...the guys claiming there was a global lood don't even bother with objective evidence. At least no one has bothered to post any in favor of the global flood theory

are you saying the only type of evidence that exists is objective in nature. if so go and do some more homework. do you think quantam science is objective. It is not, it breaks down the distinction between subject and object, yet it still gives us truths, even if we cannot logicaly expain them...
there are many experiences in life that are not objective yet they exist. maybe you shoud evaluate your model of reaity that is based on logic for the universe if far bigger than logic and so are you...

kx

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

The mass of the oceans is approximately 1.35×10^18 metric tons, or about 1/4400 of the total mass of the Earth. The oceans cover an area of 361.8×106 km2 with a mean depth of 3,682 m, resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332×109 km3.[96] If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km

Interesting, so really that water is "still in the system" just distributed differently.

To illustrate: Take a plastic bucket and place several large rocks inside it. Then fill the bucket with sand. You have a bucket full of rocks and sand. Empty the bucket but keep the same sand and rocks.
This time, fill the bucket with the sand first, and then try to place the rocks inside the bucket.
No room? That is because you put the sand in the bucket first. You could pile those remaining rocks on top though and they would be above the plastic bucket.

That is a simple example of how redistribution can work.

edit on 23-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

That would require ALL land to be at 0m of sea level. No ocean canyons or mountains...just everything flat like a marble. Yeah, seems plausible

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by dusty1

 

I am sick of hearing armchair scientists blather on and on about evidence that they have never seen for themselves.

At least they bother with evidence...the guys claiming there was a global lood don't even bother with objective evidence. At least no one has bothered to post any in favor of the global flood theory

are you saying the only type of evidence that exists is objective in nature. if so go and do some more homework. do you think quantam science is objective. It is not, it breaks down the distinction between subject and object, yet it still gives us truths, even if we cannot logicaly expain them...
there are many experiences in life that are not objective yet they exist. maybe you shoud evaluate your model of reaity that is based on logic for the universe if far bigger than logic and so are you...

kx

If you think quantum theorists don't have to back up their claims with objective evidence, you are WRONG. And if they assume something for a theory to work, they clearly label it as ASSUMPTION (or hypothesis).

Religion on the other hand calls their assumptions "truth" which is laughable

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by dusty1

 

I am sick of hearing armchair scientists blather on and on about evidence that they have never seen for themselves.

At least they bother with evidence...the guys claiming there was a global lood don't even bother with objective evidence. At least no one has bothered to post any in favor of the global flood theory

are you saying the only type of evidence that exists is objective in nature. if so go and do some more homework. do you think quantam science is objective. It is not, it breaks down the distinction between subject and object, yet it still gives us truths, even if we cannot logicaly expain them...
there are many experiences in life that are not objective yet they exist. maybe you shoud evaluate your model of reaity that is based on logic for the universe if far bigger than logic and so are you...

kx

If you think quantum theorists don't have to back up their claims with objective evidence, you are WRONG. And if they assume something for a theory to work, they clearly label it as ASSUMPTION (or hypothesis).

Religion on the other hand calls their assumptions "truth" which is laughable

can you expain to me how this works please. in classic science the subject and odject are seperate and objectiveness is possible. The seperation breaks down in quantam science as the observer affects the subject. therefore true objectiveness is impossibe under the present system.
and my friend truth is a relaitve thing. what is true for me does not have to be true for you. science my freind is a beleif system. dont forget it and there are no truths in science only theories that are later proved wrong. that is how science works.

kx

reply to post by MrXYZ

That would require ALL land to be at 0m of sea level. No ocean canyons or mountains...just everything flat like a marble.

I agree with you, the water is redistributed and thus we have some very deep oceans and less land.

reply to post by purplemer


Even if scientists working at the very fringe of what we know today, like when it comes to quantum mechanics, they still label stuff correctly as hypothesis if they don't have the evidence to 100% back it up...once they are able to back it up, it turns into a theory like the theory of evolution.

And keep in mind, scientists can assume things, but then have to label it in their studies. Like, they could study the impact on gravity if there were 11 dimension. In that case, they are not proving the existence of 11 dimensions, they are assuming they exist in the first place and then use methodologies to measure the impact on gravity.

Religion on the other hand insists that what they're claiming is the truth. They don't say "this is just a possibility" like scientists, and they never even bother backing up stuff with evidence. I don't care if they back up their stuff with evidence or not, but not labelling it as "hypothesis" or "maybe not true" makes them look incredibly silly in the 21st century

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

When I do provide evidence, like by posting two videos that explain the complexities of ship building in a manner that anyone can understand and which explains exactly why Noah's ark as described in Genesis wouldn't have been sea worthy, people such as yourself merely blow it off with ignorant statements.

Perhaps this is where we got off on the wrong foot.

Me.....

Interesting video. Apparently Noah was smarter than the guys that made the youtube video.

Then you....

Wow, that's an idiotic response. You're saying that the video which disproves that such a ship made of wood could have been sea worthy just proves that Noah, the guy whose boat hasn't been proven to have even existed, must have been smarter?

Apparently you didn't like my response.


I stand by my statement. Noah was able to figure out what the guys on youtube couldn't.


I made an observation. You called my response idiotic.

Well, I don't know about me, but you're not even fessing up to your own insults of others. You called me fat and lazy, that's a direct personal insult.

I meant you in a general sense.

However, if I your butt is offended,

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to it. I didn't mean to make it feel bad.

I never called you lazy. Can you please find the quote where I used that word?



If you were at all offended I apologize, no ifs, ands, or buts.

So you're just not going to bother addressing the thread? I mean, we're supposed to be talking about the flood story, but you've not provided a shred of evidence for what you consider to be a global worldwide deluge.

So lets talk about tree rings.

Of course, instead you're just going to make the off-hand comment that it makes you think that we don't have any tree ring data older than 5000 years...well, we have all sorts of other data that's a lot older than 5000 years.

Of course you know that the oldest living non clonal tree is Methuselah

The ancient tree is named after Methuselah, a Biblical figure reputed to have lived 969 years. It is growing at 2,900–3,000 m (9,500–9,800 ft) above sea level in the "Methuselah Grove" in the "Forest of Ancients" in the Inyo National Forest

Wow I wonder why the oldest living non clonal tree started it's growth at such a high elevation.

reply to post by dusty1

Wow I wonder why the oldest living non clonal tree started it's growth at such a high elevation.

OMG, it ran away from the flood, or knew a flood was coming and therefore decided to grow that high up...makes total sense, right?

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

When I do provide evidence, like by posting two videos that explain the complexities of ship building in a manner that anyone can understand and which explains exactly why Noah's ark as described in Genesis wouldn't have been sea worthy, people such as yourself merely blow it off with ignorant statements.

Perhaps this is where we got off on the wrong foot.

Me.....

Interesting video. Apparently Noah was smarter than the guys that made the youtube video.

Then you....

Wow, that's an idiotic response. You're saying that the video which disproves that such a ship made of wood could have been sea worthy just proves that Noah, the guy whose boat hasn't been proven to have even existed, must have been smarter?

Apparently you didn't like my response.

It was stupid. My response was valid. You basically said the most illogical thing possible. You're saying that Noah, a guy who wasn't aware that the Earth traveled around the sun, the disease was caused by bacteria, that F=ma, that E = mc^2, etc could figure out something that people several thousand years ahead of his time couldn't and you said this as a dismissive statement.

The videos didn't prove that we can't figure it out, they proved that it was impossible for a wooden ship of those dimensions to survive on the high seas.

Noah wouldn't have even had iron, how the hell was he going to prevent the ship from snapping in half? Beyond that, there's no way you could have fit two of every species of animal on that? Where did he keep the food? How did he prevent them from eating each other? How did he manage all the poop?

Seriously, there are about 1.25 million species of animals alive today, some of them reproduce multiple times over the course of a year. How did Noah work that out? The mechanics of it are entirely insane on every single level. They aren't just insane, they are quite literally impossible.

Not to mention the fact that the story of water somehow encompassing the whole Earth is, itself, impossible. Of course, we already went over this, and you brought up the idea of a hydrosphere and that the ground was somehow lower back then without explaining or providing even the most basic equations to back up those ridiculous assertions.

I stand by my statement. Noah was able to figure out what the guys on youtube couldn't.

You do realize that's a circular argument, right? Noah had to figure out a seemingly impossible thing because the story said he did. Where is the damn evidence?

I made an observation. You called my response idiotic.

Because it is. It's a circular argument. Your statement is essentially that your story is true because it says so.

That is idiotic.

I meant you in a general sense.

It's still an attack on individuals,

However, if I your butt is offended,

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to it. I didn't mean to make it feel bad.

Just don't use such ridiculous insults and we won't have a problem. Apology accepted.

I never called you lazy. Can you please find the quote where I used that word?

General implication of arm-chair scientists is laziness.

If you were at all offended I apologize, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Thank you, just try to refrain from bringing people into it, bring arguments. I'm never going to call you an idiot, no matter how many times you say things I think are idiotic.

So lets talk about tree rings.

Ok, where's the data that shows that every tree that we have or could have data from far back enough has a 'flood' year ring?

Wow I wonder why the oldest living non clonal tree started it's growth at such a high elevation.

High-elevation trees tend to be longer-lived. They're rugged. Of course, I'm asking for tree ring data, not for trees. There's a species of bristlecone pine that I've actually been fortunate enough to encounter living in the Rockies. Horribly ugly looking trees, but magnificent in their biology. They live to be hundreds of years old in tundra.

So, where's the bore sample data from Methuselah that shows it was submerged for a whole year? Where's the corresponding year on Prometheus? Where's the corresponding year on any of the ancient trees?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The flood story certainly could have came from one source. How do civilizations separated by entire oceans have remarkably similar flood myths?

Why are you so abrasive? Nobody is making you believe their flood story. If you start calling everyone who doesn't share your views names you want get far in a professional career...especially in science.

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

The flood story certainly could have came from one source. How do civilizations separated by entire oceans have remarkably similar flood myths?
.

Because floods happen all over the world? And generally floods are often very similar: Water rises, stuff gets flooded.

I mean, that's the most logical explanation. A lot more logical than saying there was a global flood even though there's zero objective evidence hinting at it.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I never said there was a global flood. I don't get why people would think the biblical flood was global when the bible isn't a global book. All the other events only happen from the Africa to Europe, with most of it taking place in the Middle East.

And there is more in common than just floods in the flood myths. Read a couple of other cultures stories. I recall reading a Native American one that was very similar to the one in the bible. I don't think Native Americans were by any large bodies of water...

I don't know. It just seems like they all came from one source. Maybe the story about the Tower of Babel is true? I know there are other cultures with a Babel story too. If only there was a time machine...

Originally posted by Throwback
I don't think Native Americans were by any large bodies of water...

Knowing beats thinking ... sometimes.

There was an absolutely catastrophic flood in what is now called the USA after it had been settled by humans.
It's possible the story of that was passed down by the survivors.

There have been many floods since which flood stories may have been founded on.

Australia has recently experienced epic flooding in some of its driest areas, flooding so severe that, in one affected area, people drowned in the main street of a town built on the side of a mountain. You can be sure if that had occurred during prehistoric times it would have led to passed down stories.

You can be equally sure such a flood, or worse, did occur in prehistoric times.

Anyway, it's only the literal interpretation of the biblical flood myth which anyone here is taking issue with. Some people argue for creationism on the grounds that every word of the bible is the literal, scientific truth. These people believe the entire earth, including mountain tops, was completely covered with water for the best part of a year while Noah and his family and all the animals floated safely in the ark. The "creationist science" explaining how this could happen is some of the funniest stuff I've seen on Youtube.

Originally posted by Columbus


The mind of a fundamentalist is invincible to logic. They are willing to kill for their position. No assault of logic can compare to that.

Columbus
The Messenger

Prove it. No, really, prove your assertion that any Christian fundamentalist, any time, has ever killed for his/her position. (I know Jewish ones have, and possibly Muslims as well, but no Christian fundamentalist has ever killed for their 'position'.
So don't be a paranoid nitwit!