It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question's regarding "The Flood"

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91

First off, why would you take the word of an ancient book over the geological explanation that these things never happened, and ancient fiction isn't supposed to be used to make sense of the world.




posted on May, 26 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: wshadow1
I'd also like to add that religion and science don't have to be contradictory to each other.

I believe that the stories, myths, religions, etc. tell the "what" and science tells the "how."

God said "let there be light." I imagine that was a pretty "big bang."
Religion and science couldn't be more opposed. There is no place for faith in science and and the claims that religions make are not supported with any evidence. That is why it requires faith. Anyone who thinks they are interchangable or that religion can be supported by any field of science doesn't understand religion or science.

What field of science do you hold a degree in?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   

edit on 5/27/2017 by Gargoyle91 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BestinShow




What a goddamn narcissistic hypocrite

In my opinion, you pretty much just summed-up the war god who went by the name of YHWH.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte
Albiruni gave it his best shot to create a historical timeline of ancient events that makes sense to him by collecting and reconciling the different calendars from different countries, cultures and religions in the ancient past. Not an easy task considering the prodigious amount of information involved. He said that it was a moral duty to chronicle it and to pass on the knowledge to future generations. He was not on a mission to debunk Abu Ma'shar as Colavito's note suggest.

"... al-Biruni attempts to unravel the truth about (the) Flood of Noah and in so doing takes direct aim at the famous work of the astrologer Abu-Ma‘shar..."

Granting that there were errors in Abu-Ma‘shar's calculations and his correlations to ancient events; by the time Albinuri wrote his book The Chronology of Ancient Nations Abu-Ma‘shar was dead for about 200 years! Again to quote from the note of Colavino:

"... Abu-Ma‘shar, whose slightly earlier writings laid the foundations for the Islamic myth of the antediluvian origins of the pyramids..."

See what a sneaky bastard Colavito is? Consider his choice of words, "slightly earlier" in what context, astrological? In human terms maybe 10 or 20 years can be considered "slightly earlier" but he didn't mention it, he could've written "after about two centuries" for clarity's sake. Is it intentional?... and again "in so doing takes direct aim" really? For someone that is internationally recognized by literary theorists one can't help but to ask why? Does he have an agenda?... oh, AA!

Was it Abu-Ma‘shar's fault that nobody checked his computations during his lifetime and after his death? Was it because Abu-Ma‘shar was famous and revered during that time that the thought of correcting his works seemed blasphemous to the astrologers and mathematicians that survived him?

I embrace skepticism but wary about those who called themselves skeptics.

Colavito is an admirable archivist and writer, maybe a good translator and editor but as an impartial historical researcher in this particular case, no.



That's not how I read it.
I see it as al-Biruni taking direct aim at a then-current belief that originated with the astrologer.

And a few hundred years versus "slightly earlier," well, that's just nit picking IMO. Both the AAH and Colavito deal with much longer stretches of time which puts a century or two into the "little earlier" category.

Harte



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte
Of course, Jason Colavito's 100 word note carry much more weight than Albiruni's entire 449 page book The Chronology of Ancient Nations.

By the way, Ancient Aliens is on it's 12th season. Episode 4: The Alien Architects is quite good. I had a blast.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte
Of course, Jason Colavito's 100 word note carry much more weight than Albiruni's entire 449 page book The Chronology of Ancient Nations.

Now your down to straw men?
Or, will you show me in al-Biruni's work where what Colavito said was wrong?


originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte
By the way, Ancient Aliens is on it's 12th season. Episode 4: The Alien Architects is quite good. I had a blast.


I watch it all the time. With the sound off.
I make up the dialog. I have a blast too.
Probably ought to record myself.

Harte



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: wshadow1
I'd also like to add that religion and science don't have to be contradictory to each other.

I believe that the stories, myths, religions, etc. tell the "what" and science tells the "how."

God said "let there be light." I imagine that was a pretty "big bang."
Religion and science couldn't be more opposed.


No, not really. Scientists can be people of faith.


There is no place for faith in science


Man-made global warming
Branes
Singularity Bing Bang
Dark Matter
Dark Energy
String Theory
Multiverse

Current scientific explanations are based in the faith of man's ability to reason out the data we gather. But there is always room for improvement and replacing old theories.


and and the claims that religions make are not supported with any evidence.


Not 100% true. Like most myths and legends, everything starts from a kernel of truth. It's just a matter of finding those origins. Science is good at that.


That is why it requires faith. Anyone who thinks they are interchangable or that religion can be supported by any field of science doesn't understand religion or science.


Faith and Religion are not the same thing. A person can have faith without belonging to the church of an organized religion, and a person can belong to an organized religion without having actual faith.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte


Now your down to straw men?
Or, will you show me in al-Biruni's work where what Colavito said was wrong?

I don't have to. Read the whole book yourself, there is no shortcut if you're so interested to disprove the curious trivia that I shared and make your own conclusion or... do you prefer to be spoonfed by a Skeptic like Colavito?



I watch it all the time. With the sound off.
I make up the dialog. I have a blast too.
Probably ought to record myself.


Yeah, I fell asleep watching Episode 5, the previous 3 episodes are so-so. You should upload that to YouTube.



edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte


Now your down to straw men?
Or, will you show me in al-Biruni's work where what Colavito said was wrong?

I don't have to. Read the whole book yourself, there is no shortcut if you're so interested to disprove the curious trivia that I shared and make your own conclusion or... do you prefer to be spoonfed by a Skeptic like Colavito?

I told you I was prepared to accept any rebuttal you could provide.
So, you don't have one?
Why, then, do you resent Colavito's characterization?

To make a conclusion on Colavito's assertion would require far more than simply reading a translation of this particular work by al-Biruni. His commentary isn't about al-Biruni per se.. It's about what al-Biruni was trying to do regarding the (then) currently accepted but erroneous history. That would require researching a lot more than a single text.

I thought maybe you knew enough about it to refute what Colavito said.
Your posts make it seem that way.
I'm still willing to consider any interpretation you might have.
Until I get one, I only ask that you reciprocate in kind.

Harte



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte
Kudos to you, that's clever. If I understand you correctly, you want me to fry in my own fat, so to speak? Why don't you ask your primary source- Colavito himself and get your answer direct from the horses mouth? It's not my note... I just gave my take on it... or did you ask him already? Please tell him I'm terribly sorry for calling him a sneaky bastard with an agenda.

What makes you think that it "would require far more than simply reading a translation of this particular work by al-Biruni" and that "his commentary isn't about al-Biruni per se... It's about what al-Biruni was trying to do regarding the (then) currently accepted but erroneous history. That would require researching a lot more than a single text?"

That's impressive! Packing all that information in a 100 word note... so, that note was really, really loaded more than I can comprehend.

Have you even read Albiruni's Preface, his inspiration for writing the book? Ok, I'll narrow it down for you: page 2 to 4, under Dedication- The Author's Method. Here you go.

Aren't we going off topic? This is becoming a Colavito love-hate fest.


edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte
Kudos to you, that's clever. If I understand you correctly, you want me to fry in my own fat, so to speak? Why don't you ask your primary source- Colavito himself and get your answer direct from the horses mouth? It's not my note... I just gave my take on it... or did you ask him already? Please tell him I'm terribly sorry for calling him a sneaky bastard with an agenda.

Ask him what? If I can trust what he wrote about al-Biruni?
I mean, I already do. You're the one with the problem with what he wrote (apparently.)
Why haven't you asked him?


originally posted by: MaxTamesSivaWhat makes you think that it "would require far more than simply reading a translation of this particular work by al-Biruni" and that "his commentary isn't about al-Biruni per se... It's about what al-Biruni was trying to do regarding the (then) currently accepted but erroneous history. That would require researching a lot more than a single text?"

Because of what Colavito said about the (then) current belief regarding the pyramids (and the "high water marks,") and what the astrologer said "earlier."
Doubting Colavito would mean reading up on the Arab beliefs of the time (outrside of what al-Biruni stated they were) and reading up on what was written in that "earlier" time ( again, outside of what al-Biruni stated.)

I'm inclined to believe that Colavito would make no such statements if he wasn't backed up by historians as well as the original texts.
Apparently, you are not so inclined, which was why I said I would like your rebuttal.


originally posted by: MaxTamesSivaHave you even read Albiruni's Preface, his inspiration for writing the book? Ok, I'll narrow it down for you: page 2 to 4, under Dedication- The Author's Method. Here you go.

No, would you care to give me a synopsis?


originally posted by: MaxTamesSivaAren't we going off topic? This is becoming a Colavito love-hate fest.

Well, this goes back to the "high water marks" on the pyramids. Maybe a little side tracked.
Let's just agree that Herodotus wasn't the source and that he saw no such marks and neither did al-Biruni. Apparently they never existed.
We can leave it at that if you wish.

Harte
ETA - Okay, I read the section you mentioned.
"... to gather the traditions from those who have reported them to correct them as much as possible..."
So, isn't "to correct them" the same as to debunk or to refute former erroneous beliefs?
That's what I see on the page. Do you see it differently?

H.

edit on 5/28/2017 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gargoyle91




Trying to make sense of it Scientifically- I'm thinking any item from before a massive planetary flood would be buried a whole lot deeper then we think,.
It's religious Dogma, don't attempt to bring science into it.

There was no great flood that encompassed the entire earth.

Think about it, Mount Everest is five miles high....


What if Everest emerged out of the flood waters. What if Pre flood land mass was more subtle before the flood. A sudden and rapid depletion of deep water could snap the earths crust like a whip pushing up mountains and spreading out seas.

Flood waters would not necessarily receded as much as land getting pushed up, forcing water to gather into the newly formed oceans revealing new mountains.


edit on 28-5-2017 by Observationalist because: Spacing



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte
Again, please tell me if I understand your point and Colavito's correctly. Albinuri by pointing out the errors of the astrologer Abu-Ma‘shar debunks his own account of the traces of watermark at the 2 Giza Pyramids? Does that mean that it was just the propaganda of religious and other zealots who exploited Abu-Ma‘shar's errors in his computation of the timeline? That all those who saw the watermark whose collective opinions were the effects of the Deluge just an ancient attempt at disinformation?

So, Albinuri was a medieval debunker that will pull the rug under his own feet? If that was the case, what about his accounts of Joseph, Tahmurath, Noah etc.?

Was it just Abu-Ma'shar's timelines that were wrong or does it include all the other events Albinuri mentioned?... or was it just the pyramid account? If an event was told or recorded inaccurately, does it mean it didn't happen; if an event happened without any witness does it also means it didn't happen?



If you haven't noticed, I mentioned Mark Lehner's book the Mystery of the Pyramids. The philosopher Abd al-Latif, his contemporaries and astronomy professor John Greaves, they could corroborate or disprove Albiruni in spite of himself... with all due respect of course to Colavito's brilliant and succinct note.



edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gargoyle91




Trying to make sense of it Scientifically- I'm thinking any item from before a massive planetary flood would be buried a whole lot deeper then we think,.
It's religious Dogma, don't attempt to bring science into it.

There was no great flood that encompassed the entire earth.

Think about it, Mount Everest is five miles high....


What if Everest emerged out of the flood waters. What if Pre flood land mass was more subtle before the flood. A sudden and rapid depletion of deep water could snap the earths crust like a whip pushing up mountains and spreading out seas.

Flood waters would not necessarily receded as much as land getting pushed up, forcing water to gather into the newly formed oceans revealing new mountains.

Not one shred of geological evidence to support any of that.

You are playing with pure science fiction, and no science fact.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Harte
Again, please tell me if I understand your point and Colavito's correctly. Albinuri by pointing out the errors of the astrologer Abu-Ma‘shar debunks his own account of the traces of watermark at the 2 Giza Pyramids?

Al-Biruni wrote no account of a watermark on the pyramids.

Al-Biruni wrote that there are some people that say that and believe it.


So, no, al-Biruni doesn't debunk himself.

Harte



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

The evidence is only interpreted through the lense of uniformitarianism. If you untie your hands from that then we might see the evidence for a rapid and catastrophic change event.

Its not hard for me to believe that a jagged rock formation with folded strata layering happened suddenly and recently. Not sure why it has to conform to a billion year timeline.


edit on 29-5-2017 by Observationalist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte
Duly noted, thank you both. I will try my utmost to express myself clearly.

Again, here's the link to Albiruni's The Chronology of Ancient Nations to check if I'm distorting my take on the topic at hand. I will refrain to quote directly from the source to avoid boring you with lengthy passages and scholarly pretense. I'll relate it how I understand it... like a 6th grade book report, warts and all.


Making Sense of Colavito's Note:

The famous astrologer Abu-Ma'shar was characterized by Albiruni as proud and over bearing. Maybe this was the reason why nobody dared to correct his computations while he was still alive. There was a possibility though that his contemporary Al-Kind, a renowned mathematician and philosopher, probably took several scholarly digs at Abu-Ma'shar because they had a quarrel before.

According to Albiruni, Abu-Ma'shar's erroneous astrological interpretations and his correlations to ancient events was exploited by religious zealots that spread the wrong belief to the general public- that the discoloration midway the height of the 2 Great Pyramids were high-water mark, traces of water of the Deluge. The Great Pyramids of Giza were not antediluvian.

To further strengthen Colavito's case to explain what appeared to be high-water mark or odd discoloration on the outer casings; let me offer a layman's speculation:

Maybe the architects and engineers of the Great Pyramids realized about half-way through the construction of the outer stone casings that their primary quarry's output will not be sufficient to finish the job. The stones in their back-up quarries didn't match the color of the original. Panic ensued. They have a deadline to meet.

After much deliberations, heated debates, finger pointing over broken jars of beer, not to mention several fist fights, broken noses, bloody mouths and missing teeth; the architects and engineers finally agreed that the best solution was to construct the outer casings two-toned midway the heights of the 2 large pyramids... and prayed to Isis that the Pharaoh will be pleased.

I still have to research the fate of the Great Pyramids' architects and engineers. Please excuse the improvisation.


It will be interesting to know how the outer stone casings were assembled or constructed, did they started from the bottom up or from the top down?


Coming up next: A Counter Argument to Colavito. This may take some time, I'm still building my case.



edit on 09 11 2015 by MaxTamesSiva because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Gargoyle91




Trying to make sense of it Scientifically- I'm thinking any item from before a massive planetary flood would be buried a whole lot deeper then we think,.
It's religious Dogma, don't attempt to bring science into it.

There was no great flood that encompassed the entire earth.

Think about it, Mount Everest is five miles high....


What if Everest emerged out of the flood waters. What if Pre flood land mass was more subtle before the flood. A sudden and rapid depletion of deep water could snap the earths crust like a whip pushing up mountains and spreading out seas.

Flood waters would not necessarily receded as much as land getting pushed up, forcing water to gather into the newly formed oceans revealing new mountains.



That would have destroyed the Earth. With the crust gone, magma would upwell and the interaction of the lava/magma and water would produce clouds of sulfurous steam... that you really can't breathe and would kill all plant and animal life.

There'd be traces of "the earth suddenly turns into magma" all over the place, believe me.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

Let me hop into this:

Do we have any proof that the color of the limestone casing actually changed - other than a report in an ancient text?

If we do not, then how do we know it was accurate? Herodotus does not mention it, nor do other ancient sources.

As Harte points out in your source (AlBiruni, page 28) says that people report that this is said and it's clear it's third or fourth hand information.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join