Noah's Flood...
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
FreeThinker
Perhaps Erectus, Perhaps Not
Not to be too nitpicky here but it is my understanding that the general consensus regarding what the ancestral hominid Homo Floriensis decended from more closely resembles the morphology of Homo Georgicus (discovered 2001 in Dmanisi, Georgia. Ex. D2700). Particularly the sockets that hold the canine teeth (sorry, don't remember what they are called). I am no true expert in the field but I know more than a little about the subject and from what I have seen of the specimens of all three (HF, HG, and HE) I am inclined to agree. The "hobbits" are the most fantastic find in a long, long time and come from way out of left field. Way too cool!
-
Guest
since you do not know me or my reading habits i would say you are out of bounds with such comments. if you would read my posts before jumping to a conclusion, you would see i said that he went into greater detail than i could on this forum.Let me understand this. You want us to read a book written about the Bible that was written by a Christian author. From this we are expected to get a different view from the ones you have been expounding. NOT!
I think you need to expand your reading material to include more liberal authors, so you can see something other than what you have been brain-washed to believe.
yes, if you are open-minded, i do expect you to read the book if you want a better picture than the one you got in the Bible belt. he provides more detail and better reasoning than the majority of evangelicals you would normally run into.
hypocrisy is not limited to just the religious and so far the majority of posters here practice it quite well.
I dont regard it as too picky to learn that it is Homo Georgicus, Free Thinker. Thanx. Yet again, we have refutation of Creationism in that these skeletons were *not* fossils, but survived into historical times, but obviously were not the descendants of any Homo Sapiens Adam.
Its tragic that they were exterminated, a reminder that one doesnt haveta be a follower of Levantine scripture to commit genocide. But if there were only a few dozen individuals, they would've died out from inbreeding anyway. Its a wonder they lasted as long as they did.
They are also an example of the problem the HNS had; reports are that they commonly lived in small family groups that were too widely dispersed to maintain a healthy degree of genetic diversity. And even the Cro Magnon that moved in, didnt do so in sufficient numbers. Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve" says there's only *7* native European mtDNA lines. Since he published, I've seen it posted on the net that there are two more in Finland. But even 9 would present genetic problems.
Which I have seen with my own eyes. I was born on a farm in MN in 1939, and remember severe retardatation rates from classmates that I know know are about 7%. I remember seeing the freaks in hospitals and institutions there in the 1940s-1965 when I left. They were *all* native European. In the years since, white families have institutionalized the retarded and freaks whereas the minorities were far more apt to keep those few which they had with the family, and thereby, with the females anyway, in the gene pool.
i daresay that primitive tropical tribes were less able to meet the needs of the significantly deformed so they didnt stay in tropical gene pools. But the Northern European communities, isolated for months by the winter, tended to keep freaks going generation after generation until finally weeded out in more recent decades. Not that they still dont have problems with hemophilia, sicklecell anemia, & spida bifada. Many of the freaks whites do have is the result of thalidomide, and that too will disappear in time.
Add it all up, and it is a defacto eugenics program that whites benefit from, but the minority custom of trying to keep their demented kin at home drags down their average IQ score considerably.
I'm a bit bemused that nobody refutes creationism with the demonstrable effect of inbreeding the entire human population over just the last 6000 years, or since Noah. Not that reasoned arguments convince neurotics.
Its peculiar as well that nobody actually discusses in a rational way the eugenic effect on the Aryans of having just 9 mtDNA lines, which I suggest were pretty smart women to survive in Ice Age Europe.
Its tragic that they were exterminated, a reminder that one doesnt haveta be a follower of Levantine scripture to commit genocide. But if there were only a few dozen individuals, they would've died out from inbreeding anyway. Its a wonder they lasted as long as they did.
They are also an example of the problem the HNS had; reports are that they commonly lived in small family groups that were too widely dispersed to maintain a healthy degree of genetic diversity. And even the Cro Magnon that moved in, didnt do so in sufficient numbers. Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve" says there's only *7* native European mtDNA lines. Since he published, I've seen it posted on the net that there are two more in Finland. But even 9 would present genetic problems.
Which I have seen with my own eyes. I was born on a farm in MN in 1939, and remember severe retardatation rates from classmates that I know know are about 7%. I remember seeing the freaks in hospitals and institutions there in the 1940s-1965 when I left. They were *all* native European. In the years since, white families have institutionalized the retarded and freaks whereas the minorities were far more apt to keep those few which they had with the family, and thereby, with the females anyway, in the gene pool.
i daresay that primitive tropical tribes were less able to meet the needs of the significantly deformed so they didnt stay in tropical gene pools. But the Northern European communities, isolated for months by the winter, tended to keep freaks going generation after generation until finally weeded out in more recent decades. Not that they still dont have problems with hemophilia, sicklecell anemia, & spida bifada. Many of the freaks whites do have is the result of thalidomide, and that too will disappear in time.
Add it all up, and it is a defacto eugenics program that whites benefit from, but the minority custom of trying to keep their demented kin at home drags down their average IQ score considerably.
I'm a bit bemused that nobody refutes creationism with the demonstrable effect of inbreeding the entire human population over just the last 6000 years, or since Noah. Not that reasoned arguments convince neurotics.
Its peculiar as well that nobody actually discusses in a rational way the eugenic effect on the Aryans of having just 9 mtDNA lines, which I suggest were pretty smart women to survive in Ice Age Europe.
Any god watching me hasta be bored, and needs to get a life.
-
Guest
why would they come out of left field, you have heard of dwarfs and pygmy's haven't you. to assume that the 'hobbit' is a different kindof humanoid is a little pre-mature without taking into account that ancient man would probably have the same variations in its membership as modern man has today.The "hobbits" are the most fantastic find in a long, long time and come from way out of left field. Way too cool!
-
FreeThinker
Questions on Noah's Flood and Debate Procedure
Good, the forum is back up!
OK, time for another go round. Not to be confusing but I will address the questions in slightly different order than you posted archaeologist. There is one point I feel I must make right off.
I will repeat my prior assertion. Invoking a deity's supernatural powers in a debate is rubbish and a dodge. It is a magical miracle card you can wave (and have) when confronted with unanswerable questions. Dismissing problems with your position by saying the reason evidence X can't be found or problem Y is not a problem is because some magical miracle occurred is a dodge. You don't even bother to follow up with any hard evidence that such a magic event happened. That is why I stand by my saying that it is rubbish.
Also you have on several occasions cited as proof of your position passages from the bible. Without citing further evidence as proof that those points are indeed true adds nothing to the debate. I am sure that you are aware that not everybody shares your belief that the bible is literally true (at least that seems to be your position. I don't want to speak for you so please correct me on this point if I am wrong). I certainly do not, and find no proof offered in stand-alone biblical quotations.
Now onto some of your other points. I am not quite sure how a calculation of the size of the population ten generations after Adam has any bearing on the question of genetic viability. Furthermore, although according to your post the calculation comes from the book "The Flood" by Alfred M. Rehwinkel, this falls very close to being in the biblical quotation category I discussed above. It presumes a belief in the biblical account of Adam and Eve, which I do not hold, as true for the same reason (amongst many others) as the concept of a single breeding pair of animals being genetically diverse enough to be viable. This is one of those tight spots where you waved the magical miracle card, BTW. The fact remains: a single breeding pair of animals (humans included in that category) does NOT have the genetic diversity to be viable and would be doomed to extinction.
About the amount of water under the earth...I will concede that it is not known exactly how much water is under the earth. I do not think that diminishes the strength of my argument however. In the biblical account it was unabated rain for forty days and forty nights that brought on the flood so the water under the ground is a bit of the stretch to point to as proving the validity of Noah's flood. However, even if the account read that Noah’s flood was the result of water coming out of the ground only, the question would remain where did it all come from. Quite a bit is known of the composition and source of the water found in underground aquifers. It comes from rainwater and is part of the ongoing evaporative/precipitative cycle (although it can remain locked away underground "out of the loop" for a long time). These aquifers are quite finite and can and do run out when over tapped (many a well has run dry) and do not hold in themselves enough water to cover the entire planet to a depth of over five kilometers. Quite a bit is also known of the interior composition of the earth. It is full of molten rock and molten iron. No water in the molten part. Only the thinnest skin of solid material, the crust, floats over this molten interior and this is where any underground water resides. The crust is on the average around 20km thick. This means that for there to be enough water trapped in the crust to account for Noah's flood the crust would have to be made up of 25% water (25% of 20 km = 5km, the depth of the flood described in the bible...the actual percentage would in truth have to be even a bit higher to account for the larger spherical section the flood waters would describe as compared to the section described by 25% of the crust but I am too lazy to do the calculation. I am sure you understand my geometrical point here however). The crust is NOT 25% water however but almost totally solid rock. So much for the water coming out of the earth.
Now for the question of where the over 5km of flood water went. I am not familiar with the research of Ryan and Pittman that you cite without explaining what it is. Please give me a synopsis of their research into this question so I can critically respond (either favorably or negatively).
You continue immediately on to the question of the missing surface scars but totally dodge it by waving the magical miracle card once again. I don't buy that at all. It adds nothing to the debate.
Now, to the questions of the animals of Australia and the Americas. There has been some odd confusion here that I think I have finally sorted out. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why you kept going on about over watered dirt and weeds and plants, avoiding the question of the animals from these continents. Then it dawned on me…my initial use and subsequent use of the word "fauna". Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you got confused and thought I was asking about plants. The word "fauna" refers to animals, not plants (as in "flora and fauna" or "plants and animals, respectively). But then you once again wave the magical miracle card in another rubbish dodge. The question remains unanswered. How did the animals from Australia and the Americas make it onto the ark? Furthermore you admonish me to remember that the geography of the earth was very different pre-flood as compared to post flood. As I don't see any evidence of a flood I would be interested to hear what proof you have that the geography of the earth was altered as you describe.
Lastly to you points in response to my post about Homo Floriensis. The remains are not of individuals afflicted with dwarfism as the skeletons do not show evidence of the characteristic morphological deformations associated with dwarfism. It is true that some (but not most) researchers initially were skeptical of the claim that the discovered remains belonged to a heretofore unknown hominid and instead postulated that they perhaps represented an individual afflicted with microcephlia (or in common terms a "pinhead"). This was postulated due to the very small brain size (around 420cc). This subsequently was ruled out as specimens from more individuals came to light exposing an ongoing population lasting many thousands of years. Also, they are too small to be pygmies. In fact they are so tiny they would be as small to a pygmy as a pygmy is to a European! So they are not diseased modern humans, but what are they then? This amazing little hominid is not a member of Homo Sapiens at all but some sort of offshoot from an earlier member of the human family. To date the remains seem to show the closest morphological similarities to Homo Georgicus (discovered 2001 in Dmanisi, Georgia). I will be the first to admit that the ancestral lineage of Homo Floriensis is poorly understood at this time. Despite some similarities to Georgicus, many differences and close to 2 million years separate Floriensis from Georgicus. Hopefully more light will be shown on these fascinating questions soon.
I am still curious to hear the answers regarding the questions I posed about the all the water as described in the story of Noah’s flood affecting the rotation and orbit of the earth. I also am curious to hear your answers about the missing layer of marine debris and the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood in the ice record contained in the Antarctic ice sheets.
I still remain as convinced as ever that the story of Noah’s flood as related in the bible is nothing more than a bronze age myth. Until I see any evidence to the contrary I will of course continue to hold this view.
I will close for now by adding in a debate questions are asked and points are either agreed upon or refuted. These determinations are made on the strength of the argument and nothing else. This determination is made by the witnesses of the debate, not by the debaters. It is not a question of winning or losing but more one of who presents the more convincing argument. I am sure you agree. Thanks again for the continuing debate. I look forwards to your reply.
OK, time for another go round. Not to be confusing but I will address the questions in slightly different order than you posted archaeologist. There is one point I feel I must make right off.
I will repeat my prior assertion. Invoking a deity's supernatural powers in a debate is rubbish and a dodge. It is a magical miracle card you can wave (and have) when confronted with unanswerable questions. Dismissing problems with your position by saying the reason evidence X can't be found or problem Y is not a problem is because some magical miracle occurred is a dodge. You don't even bother to follow up with any hard evidence that such a magic event happened. That is why I stand by my saying that it is rubbish.
Also you have on several occasions cited as proof of your position passages from the bible. Without citing further evidence as proof that those points are indeed true adds nothing to the debate. I am sure that you are aware that not everybody shares your belief that the bible is literally true (at least that seems to be your position. I don't want to speak for you so please correct me on this point if I am wrong). I certainly do not, and find no proof offered in stand-alone biblical quotations.
Now onto some of your other points. I am not quite sure how a calculation of the size of the population ten generations after Adam has any bearing on the question of genetic viability. Furthermore, although according to your post the calculation comes from the book "The Flood" by Alfred M. Rehwinkel, this falls very close to being in the biblical quotation category I discussed above. It presumes a belief in the biblical account of Adam and Eve, which I do not hold, as true for the same reason (amongst many others) as the concept of a single breeding pair of animals being genetically diverse enough to be viable. This is one of those tight spots where you waved the magical miracle card, BTW. The fact remains: a single breeding pair of animals (humans included in that category) does NOT have the genetic diversity to be viable and would be doomed to extinction.
About the amount of water under the earth...I will concede that it is not known exactly how much water is under the earth. I do not think that diminishes the strength of my argument however. In the biblical account it was unabated rain for forty days and forty nights that brought on the flood so the water under the ground is a bit of the stretch to point to as proving the validity of Noah's flood. However, even if the account read that Noah’s flood was the result of water coming out of the ground only, the question would remain where did it all come from. Quite a bit is known of the composition and source of the water found in underground aquifers. It comes from rainwater and is part of the ongoing evaporative/precipitative cycle (although it can remain locked away underground "out of the loop" for a long time). These aquifers are quite finite and can and do run out when over tapped (many a well has run dry) and do not hold in themselves enough water to cover the entire planet to a depth of over five kilometers. Quite a bit is also known of the interior composition of the earth. It is full of molten rock and molten iron. No water in the molten part. Only the thinnest skin of solid material, the crust, floats over this molten interior and this is where any underground water resides. The crust is on the average around 20km thick. This means that for there to be enough water trapped in the crust to account for Noah's flood the crust would have to be made up of 25% water (25% of 20 km = 5km, the depth of the flood described in the bible...the actual percentage would in truth have to be even a bit higher to account for the larger spherical section the flood waters would describe as compared to the section described by 25% of the crust but I am too lazy to do the calculation. I am sure you understand my geometrical point here however). The crust is NOT 25% water however but almost totally solid rock. So much for the water coming out of the earth.
Now for the question of where the over 5km of flood water went. I am not familiar with the research of Ryan and Pittman that you cite without explaining what it is. Please give me a synopsis of their research into this question so I can critically respond (either favorably or negatively).
You continue immediately on to the question of the missing surface scars but totally dodge it by waving the magical miracle card once again. I don't buy that at all. It adds nothing to the debate.
Now, to the questions of the animals of Australia and the Americas. There has been some odd confusion here that I think I have finally sorted out. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why you kept going on about over watered dirt and weeds and plants, avoiding the question of the animals from these continents. Then it dawned on me…my initial use and subsequent use of the word "fauna". Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you got confused and thought I was asking about plants. The word "fauna" refers to animals, not plants (as in "flora and fauna" or "plants and animals, respectively). But then you once again wave the magical miracle card in another rubbish dodge. The question remains unanswered. How did the animals from Australia and the Americas make it onto the ark? Furthermore you admonish me to remember that the geography of the earth was very different pre-flood as compared to post flood. As I don't see any evidence of a flood I would be interested to hear what proof you have that the geography of the earth was altered as you describe.
Lastly to you points in response to my post about Homo Floriensis. The remains are not of individuals afflicted with dwarfism as the skeletons do not show evidence of the characteristic morphological deformations associated with dwarfism. It is true that some (but not most) researchers initially were skeptical of the claim that the discovered remains belonged to a heretofore unknown hominid and instead postulated that they perhaps represented an individual afflicted with microcephlia (or in common terms a "pinhead"). This was postulated due to the very small brain size (around 420cc). This subsequently was ruled out as specimens from more individuals came to light exposing an ongoing population lasting many thousands of years. Also, they are too small to be pygmies. In fact they are so tiny they would be as small to a pygmy as a pygmy is to a European! So they are not diseased modern humans, but what are they then? This amazing little hominid is not a member of Homo Sapiens at all but some sort of offshoot from an earlier member of the human family. To date the remains seem to show the closest morphological similarities to Homo Georgicus (discovered 2001 in Dmanisi, Georgia). I will be the first to admit that the ancestral lineage of Homo Floriensis is poorly understood at this time. Despite some similarities to Georgicus, many differences and close to 2 million years separate Floriensis from Georgicus. Hopefully more light will be shown on these fascinating questions soon.
I am still curious to hear the answers regarding the questions I posed about the all the water as described in the story of Noah’s flood affecting the rotation and orbit of the earth. I also am curious to hear your answers about the missing layer of marine debris and the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood in the ice record contained in the Antarctic ice sheets.
I still remain as convinced as ever that the story of Noah’s flood as related in the bible is nothing more than a bronze age myth. Until I see any evidence to the contrary I will of course continue to hold this view.
I will close for now by adding in a debate questions are asked and points are either agreed upon or refuted. These determinations are made on the strength of the argument and nothing else. This determination is made by the witnesses of the debate, not by the debaters. It is not a question of winning or losing but more one of who presents the more convincing argument. I am sure you agree. Thanks again for the continuing debate. I look forwards to your reply.
-
Guest
i'm sorry but i stopped reading your post when you started becoming stupid. if you want me to stop using my resources, then you must stop using darwin, all evolutionary scientists and their experiments and so on.Also you have on several occasions cited as proof of your position passages from the bible
you have lost all credibility by your trying to slant the playing field. if you can not have an open mind about the subject then there is no point in having a discussion. i will not limit my knowledge so you can feel good about yourself. the Bible has never been proven wrong both historically or archaeologically, which is something you can not say for the theory of evolution. since evolutionists keep changing the theory then both history and arch. have disproven it.
your stunt is what all evolutionists try and pull and it doesn't work. when you can be honest and talk with a level playing field then contact me. till then i am moving on to other aspects of this subject.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
FreeThinker
Another total dodge
Sadly the debate ends. You have offered no proofs and cited no details of the research of others. When you get stuck in your argument your answer is a magic miracle happened and then offer no proof that any such thing occured. When I call you out on this I am accused of slanting the field but that is the ultimate dodging slant. You accuse me of not having an open mind. Not true. All I ask for is evidence and proof. You have offered none. Now you have lowered yourself by making personal attacks, calling me stupid. It is you who has lost all credibility. When you can be civil and are willing to debate by offering evidence and proofs, not playing magical miracle cards (and not even offering evidence that these magical miracles occurred) then I will be happy to continue the debate. If it ends here, that is fine by me. I will leave it up to the readers of our debate up to now to decide who offered the more valid points. I still remain, of course, convinced that the story of Noah's flood is a bronze age myth and nothing more.
-
Guest
easy to accuse someone and over-look the obvious. i cited ryan and pittman, i offered rehwenkle, i haven't got to ian wilson yet nor some other volumes i have handy.You have offered no proofs and cited no details of the research of others.
i haven't seen you offer anything but your thinking. i asked you where did you get the idea from about ice coming from outer space but you were silent. so i think you need to refrain from painting yourself good and others bad.
that is your choice, but since you refused the evidence offered what can i do. i am certainly not going to run at your beck and call providing quote upon quote just to have you call it rubbish. especially when you never back up one of your own points with a credible source. sorry but you're so called game has been uncovered and you are left wanting.I still remain, of course, convinced that the story of Noah's flood is a bronze age myth and nothing more.
for those of you who reject the Bible as a credible source, keep in mind, as i have said before, it has never been proven false by archaeology or history and if you want a discussion involving religious stories then you have to accept the Bible as a credible source, because you are talking --about the Bible.
to eliminate it from discussion or, for that matter, religious authors and their research, demonstrates your unwillingness to particpate in a honest discussion. all those who do want to eliminate those resources, please refrain from using any evolutionist material, experiments or research.
-
Rokcet Scientist
"[The bible] has never been proven false by archaeology or history"...?archaeologist wrote:[...]for those of you who reject the Bible as a credible source, keep in mind, as i have said before, it has never been proven false by archaeology or history and if you want a discussion involving religious stories then you have to accept the Bible as a credible source, because you are talking --about the Bible.
How selective can you get?
(To avoid the word 'lying'! OOPS, there, I said it...).
ROTFLMAO !!!
A man will never see the beauty of the sunset as long as he stubbornly – and stupidly – refuses to look at it.
-
FreeThinker
Another Round
My participation in the thread got started when I asked a series of very basic questions. They have not been answered. You did attempt to answer a few but for the most part you either ignored my questions or played the magical miracle card and dodged out when your argument hit a dead end. If you wish to accept magic and miracles as articles of faith that is of course your right. I do not. If you wish to convince me or any other skeptic that such miracles occurred you must offer proof. Or at least evidence. So far you have not. Name me one example of "evidence" you have given. Furthermore you have accused me of painting others bad and myself good. At no point did I do such a thing...nor have I resorted to personal attacks, nor will I.
The closest we have come to an actual debate was on the questions of where the water came from and where it went. On that one issue alone we have had a meaningful give and take over the evidence to a certain degree. Your latest post asks where I got the idea of the water getting to the earth from outer space. Well, it couldn't have just come out of nowhere. Did it come from the air or surface of the planet? There is only enough moisture in the atmosphere to produce the amount of rainfall we have all experienced worldwide all our lives. As we all know even if it is raining in one area there is always another place it is not raining. It is never raining the whole planet over. But even if it was, this could go on only for a short time. Rain falls from the sky when the atmosphere becomes saturated with moisture from evaporation. As the rain falls the atmosphere becomes depleted of moisture and the rain stops. It will not rain again until the air again becomes laden with moisture due to the evaporation of water on the ground (be it in moist soil, puddles, lakes, rivers, or oceans). This is not my idea. This is Meteorology for Beginners. At no time would there be enough water in the system to dump a flood of over 5km in depth across the whole of the planet. There is just not enough water on the surface and in the atmosphere to do it, not by a long shot. So that leaves us then with one of two possibilities. Either the water came from inside the earth or it came from outside the earth. In my prior post I discussed in some detail how it could not come from inside of the earth. The concepts of the center of the earth being molten and the only solid part being a thin skin floating on top also is not my idea. That is Geology for Beginners. So if the water didn't come from inside the earth and there isn't enough moisture in the precipitation/evaporation cycle that leaves only coming from outside the planet. In earlier posts I pointed out how in outer space it was too cold for liquid water and so any water coming from outer space had to be solid ice. There are icy bodies in outer space indeed capable of bringing the volume of water needed to flood the earth to a depth of five kilometers. Comets. It is believed by astronomers and planetary scientists that it was cometary impacts that brought water to the primordial earth in the first place in a series of bombardments over millions of years. I am not sure of the name of the astronomer who first proposed this idea but it is now accepted by the scientific community as the most likely source of the oceans and waters of the earth. The problem is when a comet hits a planet it is a devastating impact. I provided a link that had photographic proof of the devastation caused by such an impact. This was a very well documented event. An even bigger problem is comets are relatively small (the famous Haley's Comet is only 8km X 8km X 16km) so to have the water delivered from outer space to a depth of over 5km would require thousands and thousands of such impacts. So that rules out water from space. No water from underground, not enough on the surface and in the atmosphere, water from space would utterly blast the planet...the question remains wide open. Where did the water come from?
Only once did you attempt to answer the question of where the water goes. All you said on the subject was:
"ryan and pittman's research has indicated that all the water did not leave."
This is your one citing of Ryan and Pittman but you failed to explain anything about where they said the water went. Citing their names is not citing their research. Giving a synopsis of their findings, as I have asked you several times now to provide, is citing their research.
Speaking of citing people your only other citing was a possible projection of the population size after 10 generations from Adam. As I said in my previous post I fail to see how that has anything to do with the question of genetic viability. That is why I went no further with it.
You have posted several times in this forum to me and others here that the bible has never been proven false by archeology and history. Obviously I don't agree with that premise at all, and this debate about the truth or fiction of Noah's flood is but a tiny part in my skepticism about the accuracy of the bible (or any religious dogma for that matter, of whatever faith). To find out the truth I will put a concept to the test, not just accept it as proving itself.
Still totally unaddressed are the questions of the flood affecting the orbit and rotation of the planet, the question of why there is no worldwide layer of marine debris, why the Antarctic ice sheets show no evidence of an over 5km deep worldwide flood. Also left unanswered is how animals from Australia and the Americas were included on the ark. The missing surface scars from such a purportedly massive flood are still mysteriously missing and unaddressed. As is the genetic viability question...it too remains unanswered. We are at least attempting to work our way through a logical examination of where the water might have come from (if it came at all...as you know I doubt the whole story) so I cannot say that question is unaddressed but I have yet to hear any answers as to where the water came from. The question of where the water went remains unaddressed as well. Please cite for me a brief synopsis of what Ryan and Pittman's research concluded on this point if you feel it answers this question. As of yet I am still in the dark about where your side of the debate says the water went.
The closest we have come to an actual debate was on the questions of where the water came from and where it went. On that one issue alone we have had a meaningful give and take over the evidence to a certain degree. Your latest post asks where I got the idea of the water getting to the earth from outer space. Well, it couldn't have just come out of nowhere. Did it come from the air or surface of the planet? There is only enough moisture in the atmosphere to produce the amount of rainfall we have all experienced worldwide all our lives. As we all know even if it is raining in one area there is always another place it is not raining. It is never raining the whole planet over. But even if it was, this could go on only for a short time. Rain falls from the sky when the atmosphere becomes saturated with moisture from evaporation. As the rain falls the atmosphere becomes depleted of moisture and the rain stops. It will not rain again until the air again becomes laden with moisture due to the evaporation of water on the ground (be it in moist soil, puddles, lakes, rivers, or oceans). This is not my idea. This is Meteorology for Beginners. At no time would there be enough water in the system to dump a flood of over 5km in depth across the whole of the planet. There is just not enough water on the surface and in the atmosphere to do it, not by a long shot. So that leaves us then with one of two possibilities. Either the water came from inside the earth or it came from outside the earth. In my prior post I discussed in some detail how it could not come from inside of the earth. The concepts of the center of the earth being molten and the only solid part being a thin skin floating on top also is not my idea. That is Geology for Beginners. So if the water didn't come from inside the earth and there isn't enough moisture in the precipitation/evaporation cycle that leaves only coming from outside the planet. In earlier posts I pointed out how in outer space it was too cold for liquid water and so any water coming from outer space had to be solid ice. There are icy bodies in outer space indeed capable of bringing the volume of water needed to flood the earth to a depth of five kilometers. Comets. It is believed by astronomers and planetary scientists that it was cometary impacts that brought water to the primordial earth in the first place in a series of bombardments over millions of years. I am not sure of the name of the astronomer who first proposed this idea but it is now accepted by the scientific community as the most likely source of the oceans and waters of the earth. The problem is when a comet hits a planet it is a devastating impact. I provided a link that had photographic proof of the devastation caused by such an impact. This was a very well documented event. An even bigger problem is comets are relatively small (the famous Haley's Comet is only 8km X 8km X 16km) so to have the water delivered from outer space to a depth of over 5km would require thousands and thousands of such impacts. So that rules out water from space. No water from underground, not enough on the surface and in the atmosphere, water from space would utterly blast the planet...the question remains wide open. Where did the water come from?
Only once did you attempt to answer the question of where the water goes. All you said on the subject was:
"ryan and pittman's research has indicated that all the water did not leave."
This is your one citing of Ryan and Pittman but you failed to explain anything about where they said the water went. Citing their names is not citing their research. Giving a synopsis of their findings, as I have asked you several times now to provide, is citing their research.
Speaking of citing people your only other citing was a possible projection of the population size after 10 generations from Adam. As I said in my previous post I fail to see how that has anything to do with the question of genetic viability. That is why I went no further with it.
You have posted several times in this forum to me and others here that the bible has never been proven false by archeology and history. Obviously I don't agree with that premise at all, and this debate about the truth or fiction of Noah's flood is but a tiny part in my skepticism about the accuracy of the bible (or any religious dogma for that matter, of whatever faith). To find out the truth I will put a concept to the test, not just accept it as proving itself.
Still totally unaddressed are the questions of the flood affecting the orbit and rotation of the planet, the question of why there is no worldwide layer of marine debris, why the Antarctic ice sheets show no evidence of an over 5km deep worldwide flood. Also left unanswered is how animals from Australia and the Americas were included on the ark. The missing surface scars from such a purportedly massive flood are still mysteriously missing and unaddressed. As is the genetic viability question...it too remains unanswered. We are at least attempting to work our way through a logical examination of where the water might have come from (if it came at all...as you know I doubt the whole story) so I cannot say that question is unaddressed but I have yet to hear any answers as to where the water came from. The question of where the water went remains unaddressed as well. Please cite for me a brief synopsis of what Ryan and Pittman's research concluded on this point if you feel it answers this question. As of yet I am still in the dark about where your side of the debate says the water went.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16035
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
i'm sorry but i stopped reading your post when you started becoming stuoid
You know, Arch, if you are going to stoop to calling someone "stupid" you should at least spell it right. Doesn't make you look like the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
I just received "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in the Period of PIE Unity" subtitled "An attempt to locate the time & place of the Proto-Indo-European Homeland".by Frederick Ballantine & James Oswald. Pub privately by Oswald in 1988.
A charming work done with the computer equipment available at the time, which nevertheless was perfectly capable of calculating solar eclipses in prehistoric times. And there on pp 4-5, he shows charts of solar eclipses, with the remarkable number of 21 solar eclipses from feb 28 5559 BCE to nov 6 5525 BCE, with a cluster, all in the Eastern hemisphere from 20-65 deg E, one of which, in 5549 BCE begins at 28 deg E, the exact longitude of the Bosphorus.
These dudes think the PIE home was in the lands between the Caspian & Black Seas, but then, they didnt know anything about "Noah's Flood" by Ryan & Pitman. They cite the theories on the location of the homeland by Gimbutas & Mallory, which they reject more politely than seen in refutations here.
But- they do seem to have the era in which the Aryans got organized very correctly, only lacking an understanding of the economic reasons. And had they known of Plate Tectonics, they would have gone dilgently into the effect of a cluster of solar eclipses in the middle of the 6th millennium. But given what we now know about plate tectonics, and having seen the earthquakes ourselves in the region without the extreme tidal forces that combine during solar eclipses, you'd almost havta ask why there would *not* be a mythically memorable event in this era.
A charming work done with the computer equipment available at the time, which nevertheless was perfectly capable of calculating solar eclipses in prehistoric times. And there on pp 4-5, he shows charts of solar eclipses, with the remarkable number of 21 solar eclipses from feb 28 5559 BCE to nov 6 5525 BCE, with a cluster, all in the Eastern hemisphere from 20-65 deg E, one of which, in 5549 BCE begins at 28 deg E, the exact longitude of the Bosphorus.
These dudes think the PIE home was in the lands between the Caspian & Black Seas, but then, they didnt know anything about "Noah's Flood" by Ryan & Pitman. They cite the theories on the location of the homeland by Gimbutas & Mallory, which they reject more politely than seen in refutations here.
But- they do seem to have the era in which the Aryans got organized very correctly, only lacking an understanding of the economic reasons. And had they known of Plate Tectonics, they would have gone dilgently into the effect of a cluster of solar eclipses in the middle of the 6th millennium. But given what we now know about plate tectonics, and having seen the earthquakes ourselves in the region without the extreme tidal forces that combine during solar eclipses, you'd almost havta ask why there would *not* be a mythically memorable event in this era.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16035
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
feb 28 5559 BCE to nov 6 5525 BCE
Hmmm....roughly 4,300 years before the Israelites arose in Eastern Palestine.
I predict someone will question your dates, my friend.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
ah, yes. another person who doesn't take typos or editing errors into acount. thank you for pointing out the oversight.You know, Arch, if you are going to stoop to calling someone "stupid" you should at least spell it right. Doesn't make you look like the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.
as for the rest of the post, until you are ready to be honest, open-minded and want to play on a level playing field i will look to some other direction to discuss in this topic.
actually i did answer all the questions but when i posed some of my own you failed to address them. so the shoe is on the other foot not mine. when you answer my questions then you can talk.