Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

A global flood as described in the bible covered the entire world. Evidence should be found worldwide. It is not.Historical data is all well and good, but the absolute lack of physical evidence in archaeological sites kills off the flood myth completely. Most everything you have posted here.

Curiously, what I said was that you had contradicted yourself and asked if you could admit to being wrong -- the basic requirement of honest debate. Apparently you can't. What I have posted is based on objective empirical evidence that has been tested and validated. It appears that what you think is evolution was learned from the Planet of the Apes movies ... By looking at the objective empirical evidence. For example:Jarmo - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Jarmo (Qal'at Jarmo) is an archeological site located in northern Iraq on the foothills of Zagros Mountains east of Kirkuk city. It was one of the oldest agricultural communities in the world, dating back to 7090 BCE. ...

---

There is more. Jarmo predates the larger cities of Ur and Urek that grew on the fertile plains of the Euphrates River. It shows the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer as they discover how to cultivate various plants that regrew at the locations they frequented, and which allowed them to settle down in one place. This technology was then used in the more fertile land of the river flood plains, allowing larger cities to be built as more people could be fed. This is a graph that I drew for my Master's Thesis in 1972 (before home computers were readily available). You can clearly see the population explosions and then capping as population saturated the available ecology, first for hunting, then for agricultural, followed by the industrial revolution and the (current) global revolution. Population grows to fill the ecological niche, and then the next innovation occurs that allows more population. Curiously I have read and researched the history, not from sources dictated by your paranoid fictional conspiracy or any other purported "authority" ... except for the authority of what was available at the time. Actually that shoe fits you. Tightly. All you have provided are whisps of information shrouded in belief and opinion and devoid of actual objective empirical evidence. You keep saying you have information, but you don't provide it. Try again. You might try forming a coherent sentence with some actual meaning based on the actual argument against you.Enjoy

Coyote: Have you excavated and tested the area of mesopotamia which is the area where the most common historical data of an ancient flood comes from?

I am sorry to tell you that the collection of your empirical data is full of flaws. Therefore your research is completely invalid. How can you prove that your fantastic story of hill farmers were the transition to the later cities of Ur and Uruk?Or even better, what can you tell about the Sumerian knowledge of 9 celestial bodies plus the Sun in the center? was it "myth" too? oh no is not myth because we can actually see today 9 celestial bodies with the Sun in the center. Nobody cares about what the "experts" say today. The history is already written.

I have not but my colleagues have.But it doesn't matter. If there is a claim for a global flood, as there is in the bible, then anywhere that claim is found to be incorrect is sufficient to disprove the claim!You seem to want to accept old tribal myths instead of real world evidence. That's not a very good bet.And again, you have failed to present any evidence for your position.But I can present evidence for mine: mtDNA evidence from On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska (10,300 years ago) and Anzick in western Montana (12,600 years ago) produced a rare haplotype, D4h3. That haplotype is found among living individuals all along the west coasts of North and South America.If there was a global flood which wiped out everyone but Noah and his kin some 4,350 years ago you could not have the continuity of mtDNA that is shown in the above examples.In other words, no global flood. Get used to it--the global flood is a myth that is contradicted by real world evidence.

You have words you said in reply, but no answers. Having never met us nor studied our backgrounds in detail, you know this how? Or is it perhaps just one of the myths you believe? Homo Sapiens are apes, not monkeys. We're more distantly related to monkeys, but we're not monkeys. There's no box. This is science, which studies everything in the universe. Science doesn't "know" anything, if you mean that word in any absolute sense. Science is tentative, always ready to change its views in light of new evidence or improved insight. Sure it has. Here's the definitions from Dictionary.com:

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
   ​
2. stories or matter of this kind:
   realm of myth.
   ​
3. any invented story, idea, or concept:
   His account of the event is pure myth.
   ​
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
   ​
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The most substantial difference between myth and science is one lacks evidence and the other doesn't. Once a myth has evidence it's true it isn't a myth anymore. The worst thing you can think of to say about scientists is that they're imitating religion? Interesting.Science studies the natural world, not myths. In all the science books and articles I've read, I've rarely come across the word "myth" unless myths were the object of study. There you are making unsupported assumptions about us again. I suspect most of us here pretty much use the definition of myth I provided above. For example, I think most of us here regard the Jesus myth as unsupported accounts that serve as the foundation for one of the most important religions in world history, not "bullshit", "non-important" or a "joke". You're attempting to argue that Biblical myths must be accepted as true because they mention cities that actually exist, but many myths mention places that actually exist. The Robin Hood myth also mentions cities that actually exist, but in the absence of evidence we're under no obligation to believe Robin Hood existed and his exploits real. The Tigris/Euphrates flood plain experienced regular spring flooding, like the Nile. What? The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis provide evidenced-based explanations for how and why the great flood happened? Tell us more, please. I don't think you really mean to claim that the Epic of Gilgamesh or Genesis say anything about an ice age, and especially not about a "portion of ice separated from a cap traveling close to the equator, melting, and causing the sea level to raise." And the evidence for this? Since there's no evidence for a global flood covering even the mountain tops, and since there's not enough water in the world to flood to such a depth, there's no need for explanations of how it could have happened. That exercise is left for those who believe, in the absence of all evidence, that a global flood happened sometime in the last 10,000 years or so. Which is exactly what you're trying to do with your, "alleged big mass of ice coming up to the equator and melting at a fast pace." Will there be evidence along with this "information"?--Percy

Djufo writes: Troll.

We're still waiting for you to "prove" what our ancestors knew about our origins. So far all you have is unsupported claims that what they wrote was fact and not myth. I think you're confusing science and Hollywood. You're saying some pretty weird things. Our understanding of the origins of agriculture comes from archeological studies. It's no problem if you would prefer to avoid the term argicultural revolution for something that took millennia, but the shift in the archeological record from hunter/gatherer to agrarian economies is dramatic.And biology requires that everyone had 16 great great great grandfathers (not necessarily all different people), but only with evidence can we say anything more about them.--Percy

I think one actually has to identify the flaws instead of just claiming there are flaws. Wouldn't it be wonderful if winning a debate were as easy as saying, "Your data is flawed." Alas. This is the first I've heard this claim, so Googling it I could only find references to the Sumerians believing there were 11 planets, not 9. It seems to be based upon this image (click to enlarge): If you count the bodies around the sun, there are 11. Some argue that one of those bodies is the moon, so that leaves 10 celestial bodies, except there's an extra celetial body alone by itself to the right, making 11 again. Some argue that this represents a former planet that is now the asteroid belt, but recent research indicates there isn't enough mass in the asteroid belt to have ever comprised a planet.But whether the Sumerians thought there were 9, 10, 11 or 12 planets, what's important is the data that drove their thinking. What do we know about that data?--Percy

Nope.Some of my forebearers were what you would call Bushmen. Those relatively small guys were digging for roots in the Kalahari. Getting sea food on beaches. And specialists in hunting antelopes. No flood legends involved. They have been here for at least 40 000 years.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

No.
Their language was Sumerian. The writing system is cuneiform. Using your logic English and Portuguese are the same language.The rest is just pseudo intellectual crap. What you write just exposes your complete ignorance of the reality.

You believe you know. The more evidence you have, the more confidence you have that what you "know" matches reality. The less evidence you have, the more you have to rely on belief and the less (real) confidence you have in what you "know".You pretend to be confident that you "know" but you don't present any evidence. Your belief is empty.

Give me one and back it up with reference material so I can check it and make sure you are not just posting ant frass. My data is from multiple sources and you need to actually falsify each set of data to show that my research was invalid.The fact that they are consilient with each other means that my results are more likely correct than incorrect.Now I agree that some of it is dated -- seeing as it was done in 1972 (before you were born perhaps?) -- but what I have seen since that time has only reinforced my results, not challenged it.If my data were full of flaws however, there would be no reason for the consilience of the data.Thus I can freely consider your completely unsupported claim is nothing more than hogwash ... unless you can demonstrate the errors in each set of data.And so far your record of providing data is 0 - zilch - nada - rien ... all you have is opinion and arrogance. I'm not holding my breath. It is a simple matter of timing and the development of artifacts found at the sites, artifacts that become more refined in the cities.It is also a pattern that is seen elsewhere in the world as agriculture is introduced or discovered in the different regions. This is known as the "red herring" logical fallacy, throwing in a non-sequitur into an argument to divert attention from the fact that you are not answering the questions.You keep saying that the "history is already written" and yet you haven't provided any reference to that actual history. You've been caught out already on claiming the flood was documented in history before there was written history.So I ask again -- can you admit that you are wrong when you are wrong or are you delusional₃? The delusions of persecution does seem to fit with your ranting about everybody but you being brainwashed and muppets for some vast conspiracy.Enjoy.

Do you know that melting ice-bergs (floating chunks of ice) do not raise the level of the sea?Melting ice that is on land causes sea levels to rise. So the last ice age ended in 40 days?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

That's another example of the continuity of mtDNA that disproves the idea of a global flood during the past 40,000 years.Such a flood would have to produce a discontinuity of mtDNA, among other discontinuities.