Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
428 online now:
Faith, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 421 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,530 Year: 1,278/23,288 Month: 1,278/1,851 Week: 402/320 Day: 11/91 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs Flood
Coyote
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 3 of 100 (532664)
10-25-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
10-25-2009 7:42 AM


Minor correction
A minor correction:

The date of this localized flood was 5600 BC, not 5600 years ago.

There is some good background information at Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 10-25-2009 7:42 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 9 of 100 (532849)
10-26-2009 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Peg
10-26-2009 9:42 PM


Re: A flood of flood mythes.
its seems that there is a large body of evidence that could most definately be used to identify such a flood, yet what happens with that evidence is that its interpreted every other way

That's just creationist nonsense!

Here's what's happening.

The "global flood" is firmly established by biblical scholars at about 4,350 years ago.

Archaeologists (such as I) look in dirt of that approximate age all the time and we find no evidence for any erosional or depositional features that could be attributed to a global flood.

Rather, what we see are continuities--in my area I see continuities of Native American cultures, genotypes, occupational sites, fauna and flora, stratigraphy, etc. What I don't see is a break or discontinuity, let alone one that could be attributed to a global flood.

There is no "large body of evidence" for a global flood under any rational interpretation.

To make such a flood seem possible, creationists have to ignore the vast majority of data and distort the rest. Your "what ifs" are a prime example.

--What if the dating is wrong (no evidence to show that it is, just a "what if").

--What if all those flood stories refer to Noah's flood (stories from a vast range of time, place, and detail, and all of which had some living people to tell the story; but you keep your belief alive by posing a "what if").

--What ifs... ad nauseum, with no data to support them.

Peg, you should never attempt to discuss science. You not only have no talent for it but everything you believe points you in the opposite direction. You have been almost universally wrong in your pronouncements about science. I guess that's because you are following religious belief, the very antithesis of science, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Peg, posted 10-26-2009 9:42 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 10-27-2009 12:09 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 11 of 100 (532865)
10-27-2009 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peg
10-27-2009 12:09 AM


Re: A flood of flood mythes.
That's all well and good--we have evidence for a localized flood event in that area and you are using that as evidence for a global flood?

Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Can you deal with the facts I presented? Or are you just going to pretend I never presented them and hope I'll forget that I did so.

Fact: Noah's flood is placed by biblical scholars about 4,350 years ago (I can provide a lot of citations if you dispute this).

Fact: Archaeological research in North America, including maybe 100 sites I have tested, shows no evidence of a global scale flood about 4,350 years ago.

Fact: What the vast majority of sites in North America show, if they contain deposits from that time period, is continuity. Continuity of culture, stratigraphy, fauna and flora, human genome, etc. No gap caused by an immense flood.

Deal with these facts please. Don't just try to ignore them, and don't just propose some silly "what if" to try to make them go away. They aren't going away. They are real, and they directly contradict the global flood myth.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 10-27-2009 12:09 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 10-27-2009 2:37 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 100 (535764)
11-17-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by AnswersInGenitals
11-17-2009 3:41 PM


Re: A flood of flood mythes.
How does one prove that a flood did not occur in, say, Omaha Nebraska in c, 2200 bce? Must a flood always leave evidence, even a very deep flood? Could not subsequent events, a wind or sand storm perhaps or other anomaly, remove all evidence of such a flood?

You ask the local archaeologists.

If they have evidence of cultural continuity, genetic continuity, and stratigraphy from before to after the date of the flood (4350 years ago) then there was no flood at that time.

Edited by Coyote, : Double quote; one removed


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 11-17-2009 3:41 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 100 (562705)
05-31-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by glowby
05-31-2010 11:05 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
The problem is that modern science has conclusively disproved the idea of a global flood some 4,350 years ago. The early creationist geologists did this about 200 years ago, and they set out to document the flood!

It is so easy to disprove the idea of a global flood now-a-days that even my own local archaeological data does it. As do the data from archaeologists around the world. And geologists. And geneticists. And sedimentologists. And biologists. And Zoologists. And a lot of other -ologists.

To believe that the story of a global flood about 4,350 years ago is true one has to deny all of that evidence.

It is not just picking and choosing, it is denial of overwhelming evidence.

Yet we see this all the time.

Truly, as Heinlein said, "Belief gets in the way of learning."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by glowby, posted 05-31-2010 11:05 PM glowby has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:42 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 85 of 100 (562709)
05-31-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
This is just not a factually true statement. IF the sciences all proved that the earth was millions of years old, there probably would not be the amount of discourse and discussion going on that we have right now. There are ways to interpret the evidence that can fit into both sides.

Sorry, no.

The data lead to one interpretation, and that is an old earth.

To make the data fit into a young earth interpretation you have to ignore the overwhelming majority of it, and then twist and misrepresent the rest.

This "we have our own interpretation" stuff that creationists come up with is nonsense. They are lying to themselves to try to prop up their religious beliefs.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:36 PM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 86 of 100 (562710)
05-31-2010 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
My problem is not with you and what you believe science tells you about a global flood.

Sorry, wrong again. I am one of those scientists. I am an archaeologist with decades of experience. (My life is in ruins!)

My own evidence has disproved the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago. I don't have to rely on some "scientists" and their interpretations. I can look at the evidence for myself.

Here is one bit: In testing somewhere over 100 sites which span the time period of about 4,350 years ago not once have I found a massive layer of flood deposits, nor a massive erosional feature. One or the other of these would have been associated with a flood. I don't find either.

Another: I find continuity of human cultures, genetics, fauna and flora, and sedimentology before to after the date attributed to the flood. That disproves the flood right there.

But if it was just me, one could question my results. Tens of thousands of other scientists from around the world report the same kinds of results.

Face it, the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago is a myth contradicted by a massive amount of scientific evidence.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:42 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 100 (562762)
06-01-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Flyer75
06-01-2010 2:13 AM


Re: Picking and choosing
The data lead to one interpretation, and that is an old earth.

To make the data fit into a young earth interpretation you have to ignore the overwhelming majority of it, and then twist and misrepresent the rest.

This "we have our own interpretation" stuff that creationists come up with is nonsense. They are lying to themselves to try to prop up their religious beliefs.

So are you saying, it's a shut and locked case coyote? In every case? There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets? At the very least, there is still debate on these issues.


No, in regards to an old earth there is no debate.

There are only creationists who refuse to accept the scientific evidence because of religious beliefs.

In science, the debate was ended over 200 years ago. All that is being done now is working out the precise details.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020