Is it time to make the needed corrections about - ERR-atics?

This thread is a lost cause. Whether cooperton admits it or not, the facts have been laid out. Arguing with a fool only makes more fools.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This thread is a lost cause. Whether cooperton admits it or not, the facts have been laid out. Arguing with a fool only makes more fools.

I know, but one more...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

And what is the physical evidence that backs up these accounts?

Matching fossils that span across oceans. They attribute this to pangea, but it would also be what you would expect after the occurrence of a global flood.

The idea of Pangea and that early Dinosaur (and other) fossils span across continents has nothing whatsoever to do with human history. So fossils span contents because the continents were together 200 million years ago? And...? That's evidence for Pangea, not evidence for a global flood.

If we're going back that far, then I will admit to a global "flood" of sorts -- i.e., the snowball Earth hypothesis. That scientific hypothesis states that Earth was totally covereed in ice at one time, about 700 million years ago. But that would predate any possibility of a global flood story.

If you want to talk about fossils -- and even living organisms -- spread all over the planet, such as humans being in North America tens of thousands of years ago, then that could possibly be due to a land bridge across the Bering Strait that existed due to LOW water levels during a glaciation period -- NOT due to a flood.




By the way (a side note), the Pangea idea also is not just a one-time supercontinent 200 million years ago. The Earth's continents are believed to have moved together and apart again several times over the life of the planet -- so there was not just one time that a Pangea-type supercontinent existed, but several times.

It is thought that thare has been as many as 11 different times over the life of Earth that a supercontinent was created then broke apart again. Pangea is just the latest version, but not the only.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This thread is a lost cause. Whether cooperton admits it or not, the facts have been laid out. Arguing with a fool only makes more fools.

You can hold to the foolish assertion that you are the offspring of mutant amphibian ancestors all you want. But when you start acting as if such a theory is based in any sort of empirical fact and try to convince curious minds who may be perusing these forums that it is the obvious reality, I have to intercede. Your great god the primordial soup that by miracle produced the complex machinery required for the first cell will surely be unaware of your efforts to valiantly defend the meaningless theory.

The fool is the one who ignores history, and instead buys into a surface layer of incomplete knowledge and even worse ridicules those who are pursuing actual complete understanding of world and self.

Your name is no accident. "Tzar Chasm", meaning 'king of separation'

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
That scientific hypothesis states that Earth was totally covereed in ice at one time, about 700 million years ago.

the Pangea idea also is not just a one-time supercontinent 200 million years ago. The Earth's continents are believed to have moved together and apart again several times over the life of the planet

so there was not just one time that a Pangea-type supercontinent existed, but several times. It is thought that thare has been as many as 11 different times over the life of Earth that a supercontinent was created then broke apart again. Pangea is just the latest version, but not the only.

Source? What is the empirical evidence that demonstrates this all happened with certainty around 700 million years ago? What evidence concludes that this breaking and converging happened 11 different times? Please, it is your turn now to find the evidence that supports this supposedly very evident theory.

It would be much simpler to conclude that history is right and a massive flood dispersed fossils across oceans.

a reply to: cooperton

Your name is no accident. "Tzar Chasm", meaning 'king of separation'

Separating fact from fiction perhaps.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This thread is a lost cause. Whether cooperton admits it or not, the facts have been laid out. Arguing with a fool only makes more fools.

You can hold to the foolish assertion that you are the offspring of mutant amphibian ancestors all you want. But when you start acting as if such a theory is based in any sort of empirical fact and try to convince curious minds who may be perusing these forums that it is the obvious reality, I have to intercede. Your great god the primordial soup that by miracle produced the complex machinery required for the first cell will surely be unaware of your efforts to valiantly defend the meaningless theory.

The fool is the one who ignores history, and instead buys into a surface layer of incomplete knowledge and even worse ridicules those who are pursuing actual complete understanding of world and self.

Your name is no accident. "Tzar Chasm", meaning 'king of separation'

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
That scientific hypothesis states that Earth was totally covereed in ice at one time, about 700 million years ago.

the Pangea idea also is not just a one-time supercontinent 200 million years ago. The Earth's continents are believed to have moved together and apart again several times over the life of the planet

so there was not just one time that a Pangea-type supercontinent existed, but several times. It is thought that thare has been as many as 11 different times over the life of Earth that a supercontinent was created then broke apart again. Pangea is just the latest version, but not the only.

Source? What is the empirical evidence that demonstrates this all happened with certainty around 700 million years ago? What evidence concludes that this breaking and converging happened 11 different times? Please, it is your turn now to find the evidence that supports this supposedly very evident theory.

It would be much simpler to conclude that history is right and a massive flood dispersed fossils across oceans.

I would like to draw your attention to two words. The first is 'fossils'. The second is 'geology'.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Yeah, that's the goal. I generally use scrutiny when people make claims or say something they claim will shake my world whilst offering no actual evidence.

Dude chilllllllll. The Hebrews, The Chinese, The Incas, The Sumerians, The Greeks, The Hindus, etc, etc, etc all talked about the massive flood that almost destroyed all life on earth.

You're the one denying history here.

I'll take Geology for 200, Alex.

The floods were local. A glacial period ended around 12,000 years ago causing many floods in many areas over a thousand year period while thawing.

Think about it. How would someone in China know if South America was flooded? You are talking about exaggerated legends and folklore. Obviously there were many big floods during that time period, but none global and none that destroyed almost all life on earth.

a reply to: cooperton

I have a couple of questions about this worldwide flood:

I believe the amount of water on the planet has remained about the same over millions of years. If the planet was covered in water to the extent that it killed every living thing, what was the geology of the Earth at that time? Did all the land sink to some extent to allow for a flood of catastrophic proportions all over the globe? The land masses at the time have to be accounted for including high mountains ranges.

What happened to all the water? Did it just recede into the Earth? Did the land rise and displace the water? How would you account for that volume of water just disappearing? Into oceans?

All the depictions of the biblical flood show that it rained (I think 40 days/40 nights?). Was the rain new water added to the existing volume of water on the planet? I thought the only way that Earth accumulates more water is through meteorites, etc that have some water in their mass.

The current guesstimates as to where Noah's ark finally landed show that it's on a mountain somewhere in Turkey. Let's say the mountain is about 915 meters high from current sea level. That's a lot of deep water surrounding that mountain for the ark to land on.

I can understand isolated catastrophic floods around the planet. But the whole planet?? I don't think it's possible without some catastrophic tectonic movement that uplifted all that water to the surface, including uplifting of ocean/sea bottoms such that the water spread out across the land. Forty days of rain just doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I have a couple of questions about this worldwide flood:

I believe the amount of water on the planet has remained about the same over millions of years. If the planet was covered in water to the extent that it killed every living thing, what was the geology of the Earth at that time? Did all the land sink to some extent to allow for a flood of catastrophic proportions all over the globe? The land masses at the time have to be accounted for including high mountains ranges. What happened to all the water? Did it just recede into the Earth? Did the land rise and displace the water? How would you account for that volume of water just disappearing? Into oceans?

Thanks for the mature response.

From reading the accounts of what it was like before the flood, things were much different back then. The conditions of this pre-flood earth would be tough to fully grasp, but we can speculate. It is estimated that there is over 3x to 11x more water underneath the earth's surface than there is in the oceans (source, Layman's source). Also worth noting that the estimate of the core of the earth is around 11,000 degrees fahrenheit, nearing the temperature that water turns into plasma.

The current guesstimates as to where Noah's ark finally landed show that it's on a mountain somewhere in Turkey. Let's say the mountain is about 915 meters high from current sea level. That's a lot of deep water surrounding that mountain for the ark to land on.

The Turkish government claims to have found it. It is largely decayed but they have found an anomaly in the mountains of Ararat that contains large ribs of petrified wood and has the same dimensions as the ark described in the Bible

I can understand isolated catastrophic floods around the planet. But the whole planet?? I don't think it's possible without some catastrophic tectonic movement that uplifted all that water to the surface, including uplifting of ocean/sea bottoms such that the water spread out across the land. Forty days of rain just doesn't cut it.

History of many cultures describes events that we just simply cannot believe due to the mundane events that we are used to in this era. To ignore them would be ignorant, to believe all of them would be naive, but when multiple cultures across the globe describe the same event with considerable similarity then you have something worthwhile to consider

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, I agree that historical documents which depict unusual events should be studied. I have no problem with that. As to the flood, I wonder if computer modeling has ever been done to test the wide range of variables that might have contributed to the big flood, or any flood for that matter. By guesstimating the volume of water, the mass of the Earth and tectonic activity, it might be possible to test the conditions. I did read somewhere that the Mediterranean flowed into the Black Sea at one time due to tectonic activity. This is the type of thing that could trigger a major floor.

Rain might contribute to low lying regions. But the mountain regions remain a mystery. I wonder if tidal forces could have carried large objects like a boat and strand them on a mountain.

Have any artifacts other than the ship been found i.e. fossils, remnants of any sort? The age of the material that the ship was built from could be dated and matched to other recorded events around the globe. Nailing the time period that the current artifacts have been found would be very important - I'm sure somebody does this type of work. That region still has major tectonic activity.

As I'm said before, I don't discount anything until all the data is in. There's something on that mountain in Turkey - whether it's Noah's ark or someone else's boat remains to be seen. But an interesting topic overall.

Here's a screenshot of the region with tectonic plates shown. Tectonic subduction and tectonic boundaries are known to cause catastrophic tsunamis. Just looking at the tectonic plate composition of the region, it isn't impossible that a huge tsunami could have displaced water well into the area. I have no idea if there's any geologic record of this happening, but it's a consideration.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I have a couple of questions about this worldwide flood:

I believe the amount of water on the planet has remained about the same over millions of years. If the planet was covered in water to the extent that it killed every living thing, what was the geology of the Earth at that time? Did all the land sink to some extent to allow for a flood of catastrophic proportions all over the globe? The land masses at the time have to be accounted for including high mountains ranges. What happened to all the water? Did it just recede into the Earth? Did the land rise and displace the water? How would you account for that volume of water just disappearing? Into oceans?

Thanks for the mature response.

From reading the accounts of what it was like before the flood, things were much different back then. The conditions of this pre-flood earth would be tough to fully grasp, but we can speculate. It is estimated that there is over 3x to 11x more water underneath the earth's surface than there is in the oceans (source, Layman's source). Also worth noting that the estimate of the core of the earth is around 11,000 degrees fahrenheit, nearing the temperature that water turns into plasma.

The current guesstimates as to where Noah's ark finally landed show that it's on a mountain somewhere in Turkey. Let's say the mountain is about 915 meters high from current sea level. That's a lot of deep water surrounding that mountain for the ark to land on.

The Turkish government claims to have found it. It is largely decayed but they have found an anomaly in the mountains of Ararat that contains large ribs of petrified wood and has the same dimensions as the ark described in the Bible

I can understand isolated catastrophic floods around the planet. But the whole planet?? I don't think it's possible without some catastrophic tectonic movement that uplifted all that water to the surface, including uplifting of ocean/sea bottoms such that the water spread out across the land. Forty days of rain just doesn't cut it.

History of many cultures describes events that we just simply cannot believe due to the mundane events that we are used to in this era. To ignore them would be ignorant, to believe all of them would be naive, but when multiple cultures across the globe describe the same event with considerable similarity then you have something worthwhile to consider

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Most early civilizations were based very close to open bodies of water. And that article demonstrates the dangers of such proximity. The problem here is that you have made a good case for cross cultural psychology, but no case for divine meddling being the cause of flooding.

Double

a reply to: cooperton

Okay, so where's the scientific research? Correlations of ancient legends and the government of turkey is not research. Plus we know that some of those stories were copied. Noah is basically a plagiarized Gilgamesh.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This thread is a lost cause. Whether cooperton admits it or not, the facts have been laid out. Arguing with a fool only makes more fools.

So how about that empirical evidence of an erratic?

Found Anything yet?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This thread is a lost cause. Whether cooperton admits it or not, the facts have been laid out. Arguing with a fool only makes more fools.

So how about that empirical evidence of an erratic?

Found Anything yet?

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Apart from the material already posted here and readily available on any search engine, you will not be convinced if you choose to resist the evidence presented. Ignorance is a choice. Feel free to post an alternative theory with accompanying empirical evidence and we will see how it compares.

a reply to: edmc^2



This video seemed perfect for you. This geologist basically talks about how large icebergs can carry rocks and boulders during floods. I get you really want the worldwide flood to be the cause, but there are quite a few causes for erratic rocks. Flooding is one of them. Glacier movement is another. Flooding can be instant. Glacier movement takes a long time.

What you are asking is the same as asking somebody to prove evolution by watching a dinosaur become a modern day bird in real time when it takes millions of years. Are you trying to say that ONLY floods can move boulders? You don't buy it because you can't have a video that lasts the entire last glacial period (almost 100,000 years).

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This thread is a lost cause. Whether cooperton admits it or not, the facts have been laid out. Arguing with a fool only makes more fools.

So how about that empirical evidence of an erratic?

Found Anything yet?

See above. And while you're around, maybe post a video or two showing us empirical evidence of a global flood and of the cosmic overlord who made it happen and his convincing promise to never genocide us again.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

This video seemed perfect for you. This geologist basically talks about how large icebergs can carry rocks and boulders during floods. I get you really want the worldwide flood to be the cause, but there are quite a few causes for erratic rocks. Flooding is one of them. Glacier movement is another. Flooding can be instant. Glacier movement takes a long time.

What you are asking is the same as asking somebody to prove evolution by watching a dinosaur become a modern day bird in real time when it takes millions of years. Are you trying to say that ONLY floods can move boulders? You don't buy it because you can't have a video that lasts the entire last glacial period (almost 100,000 years).

Well, all I'm asking is an empirical evidence of an erratic - not an ASSUMPTION. Surely, with the technology we have today, and the know-how - it would be easy to demonstrate this thing. It should be as easy as these two vids below:





And there's no need to make an ice age just to demonstrate the power of glaciation just as there's no need to flood the world to demonstrate and show the power of water.

You can even provide mathematical calculations on the viscosity of ice against water and the kinetic power it holds against a solid object - i.e. a VLB.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
This thread is a lost cause. Whether cooperton admits it or not, the facts have been laid out. Arguing with a fool only makes more fools.

So how about that empirical evidence of an erratic?

Found Anything yet?

See above. And while you're around, maybe post a video or two showing us empirical evidence of a global flood and of the cosmic overlord who made it happen and his convincing promise to never genocide us again.

Yes, I did the research and no such luck of an erratic (empirical) evidence - all are just assumptions. Maybe you know something that could prove this claim.

originally posted by: edmc^2

Yes, I did the research and no such luck of an erratic (empirical) evidence - all are just assumptions. Maybe you know something that could prove this claim.

It is ashame that contemporary dogma no longer needs empirical evidence to remain, it is essentially the opposite of the true scientific method. If a current standing dogma can no longer match empirical data, it should be removed rather than held on to for convenience sake. Even worse is that better matching ideas are ignored because the old dogma are presumed to be based in facts, when it is often based in theoretical assumptions.

So many of the 100million/billion year old age dictates are assumptions that are based on other assumptions. Tragically, a cursory glance at these facets of science would make the looker assume that it is based in some sort of observable fact, when often it is not.