Conquer Club

An unanswered question I still have for flood-denialism.

Everyone knows the earth used to be in an ice age, right?

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Have we really never had to wonder for ourselves what happened to all the ice??? Is it really so silly to entertain the idea that the ice melted, turned into water, and flooded the oceans???

Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Interesting at least,see where it goes

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

People who say that just have their time scales all confused. Eden was much longer ago than that, which we know because Romans were actually a metaphor for dinosaurs.

Scotty's right. The floods happened very suddenly when God turned on the hair dryers and melted all the ice in a day.

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Biblical rabbit hole? Why are we talking about the Bible, or even the 'established' timeline of the Bible? There are over 200 religions and cultures over the world that recorded and passed on orally and in written form a very similar story about the great flood. Shall we conclude all their stories have the same timeline?

Timelines and the one version out of 200+ that you choose to start with aside, I'm not sure any of this relates to how so many have come to the conclusion that there was no great flood. I would be curious to see your source for the official established timeline for a story in the Book of Genesis, if you would be so kind.

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

People who say that just have their time scales all confused. Eden was much longer ago than that, which we know because Romans were actually a metaphor for dinosaurs.

Perhaps bringing up the timeline of the Bible was meant to confuse? I can understand why Mets brings up the Bible, but really I wasn't asking anything about the Bible or Noah or the Arc.

Just simply asking how it's even possible that the melting of all that ice would not result in a great flood all around the world, a flood so great, over 200 religions and cultures have a recorded said event in their sacred and religious texts.

notyou2 wrote:Scotty's right. The floods happened very suddenly when God turned on the hair dryers and melted all the ice in a day.

I can understand how pre-historic and even modern human beings insert 'God' into things they didn't understand at the time. However, I cannot understand how what pre-historic humans blamed as the cause for the great flood means that there was no great flood.

Care to elaborate on that?

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Biblical rabbit hole? Why are we talking about the Bible, or even the 'established' timeline of the Bible? There are over 200 religions and cultures over the world that recorded and passed on orally and in written form a very similar story about the great flood. Shall we conclude all their stories have the same timeline?

If you want to debate a hypothesis, you need to be specific about its nature. Since presumably most or all of the existing cultural stories about a great flood will differ in the details about how it happened, it is not enough to specify whether a "great flood" occurred, but when, how, and for how long it lasted. We cannot make any progress on the issue until that has been indicated. So if you are not talking about the flood of Genesis, then which one are you talking about? Or do you want us to try and simultaneously discuss all 200 stories at the same time? I have started off with one particular narrative that I thought would be relevant to you, but if you prefer a different narrative, please be specific.

Timelines and the one version out of 200+ that you choose to start with aside, I'm not sure any of this relates to how so many have come to the conclusion that there was no great flood.

I can't speak for everyone, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that there's no strong contemporary geological evidence to suggest that a global flood occurred.

I would be curious to see your source for the official established timeline for a story in the Book of Genesis, if you would be so kind.

Obviously I have very little knowledge about Biblical scholarship, but I was referring to the well-known Ussher timeline. As far as I am aware other timelines that are still young Earth creationist in nature don't put the age at greater than 10,000 years, i.e. after the end of the last glacial maximum.

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Established by whom? Old Testament timelines are terribly vague. The seven day earth creation could be 7 earth days or more likely as alluded to, a lot of earth years.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Biblical rabbit hole? Why are we talking about the Bible, or even the 'established' timeline of the Bible? There are over 200 religions and cultures over the world that recorded and passed on orally and in written form a very similar story about the great flood. Shall we conclude all their stories have the same timeline?

If you want to debate a hypothesis, you need to be specific about its nature. Since presumably most or all of the existing cultural stories about a great flood will differ in the details about how it happened, it is not enough to specify whether a "great flood" occurred, but when, how, and for how long it lasted. We cannot make any progress on the issue until that has been indicated. So if you are not talking about the flood of Genesis, then which one are you talking about? Or do you want us to try and simultaneously discuss all 200 stories at the same time? I have started off with one particular narrative that I thought would be relevant to you, but if you prefer a different narrative, please be specific.

Timelines and the one version out of 200+ that you choose to start with aside, I'm not sure any of this relates to how so many have come to the conclusion that there was no great flood.

I can't speak for everyone, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that there's no strong contemporary geological evidence to suggest that a global flood occurred.

I would be curious to see your source for the official established timeline for a story in the Book of Genesis, if you would be so kind.

Obviously I have very little knowledge about Biblical scholarship, but I was referring to the well-known Ussher timeline. As far as I am aware other timelines that are still young Earth creationist in nature don't put the age at greater than 10,000 years, i.e. after the end of the last glacial maximum.

Besides the fact there has been (ignored) evidence all along but the scientific community exiled and banned scientists for life because their findings had yet to be 'understood' and synthesized with other scientific fields with other discoveries of evidence that had not been presented, tested, backed up and certified....discoveries made all the way up until now. Yup, that kind of stuff we only 'know' about reserved for theorizing the sun revolves around the earth still goes on today in established science. There in fact is strong contemporary geological evidence to show for a fact that a global great flood occurred, and it's not only geological either. I am glad to go all the way down the rabbit hole as to when, how, how long, and much more in specific details. Progress is trying to be made as we speak, right here in real time, but there can be no progress and I'm not going to be getting detailed until we can start talking about the great flood and it's clear we aren't talking about the Bible, and we aren't talking about young earth creationists.

It could be the great flood of Genesis, it could be Ussher's 'theoretical' timeline is incorrect, it could be it doesn't matter how well something is 'known' as well which makes a thing true or false. Nobody knew what a dinosaur was until 1938, so everybody 'knew' there was no such thing as dinosaurs in 1937. Humanity has not discovered everything there is to be discovered in the world, and until we have, new discoveries are going to be made all the time. Certainly discoveries can either confirm or challenge what 'everyone knows' or what is 'well known' and sometimes discoveries have and can still turn what everyone knows into incorrect knowledge and evolving historic models.

Think about this for a second. Human beings as we are in our current state have been living on this planet for around 200,000 years. Established history in our textbooks barely represents 5% of human history. 95% is missing. There is virtually ALL of human history left to still discover. We'll probably never get all of history from all humanity, but think about how much history we could gain and what it would do to our understanding of history if we got up to 10%. How about 5% to 6%? a 1% increase in discovering and understanding human history will likely change 'everything we know'.

Phatscotty wrote:We'll probably never get all of history from all humanity, but think about how much history we could gain and what it would do to our understanding of history if we got up to 10%. How about 5% to 6%? a 1% increase in discovering and understanding human history will likely change 'everything we know'.

Well I don't think that learning more about human history will teach us more about dinosaurs or relativity, but sure -- I agree with you that there's a lot of value in continuing to study the history of humanity. And indeed, I support the people who actually spend their lives dedicated to actively learning about this. What I don't have much patience for is people who engage in idle speculation on internet forums with people who are mostly just as ignorant about the subject as they are, when they could be out scouring the available evidence -- or finding new evidence of their own. There's so much to learn out there, man, and you're not going to learn much of it on the Conquer Club forums.

2dimes wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Established by whom? Old Testament timelines are terribly vague. The seven day earth creation could be 7 earth days or more likely as alluded to, a lot of earth years.

The 7 days could also be 'great days', which represents (around/about) 60,000 years, referring to solar revolutions.

It also could simply be the 7 days 'the watcher' took to first notice Venus would always appear in the morning sky just before the sun was about to rise, discovering the first thought and preceding the first step of evolution in Stanley Kubrik's 2001 A Space Odyssey

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:We'll probably never get all of history from all humanity, but think about how much history we could gain and what it would do to our understanding of history if we got up to 10%. How about 5% to 6%? a 1% increase in discovering and understanding human history will likely change 'everything we know'.

Well I don't think that learning more about human history will teach us more about dinosaurs or relativity, but sure -- I agree with you that there's a lot of value in continuing to study the history of humanity. And indeed, I support the people who actually spend their lives dedicated to actively learning about this. What I don't have much patience for is people who engage in idle speculation on internet forums with people who are mostly just as ignorant about the subject as they are, when they could be out scouring the available evidence -- or finding new evidence of their own. There's so much to learn out there, man, and you're not going to learn much of it on the Conquer Club forums.

Luckily, I do have the patience to wait for someone who wants to and can talk about the all the water resulting from the melting of the last ice age. Just curious, and this has nothing to do with religion or religious texts. What do you think happened to all the water resulting from the melting of the ice sheets marking the end of the last ice age? Hint, the North American ice sheet spanned from the North Pole to Kentucky and over Canada the ice sheet was stacked up to 2 miles thick.
As asked before
Everyone knows the earth used to be in an ice age, right?

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Have we really never had to wonder for ourselves what happened to all the ice??? Is it really so silly to entertain the idea that the ice melted, turned into water, and flooded the oceans???

Phatscotty wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Established by whom? Old Testament timelines are terribly vague. The seven day earth creation could be 7 earth days or more likely as alluded to, a lot of earth years.

The 7 days could also be 'great days', which represents (around/about) 60,000 years, referring to solar revolutions.

It also could simply be the 7 days 'the watcher' took to first notice Venus would always appear in the morning sky just before the sun was about to rise, discovering the first thought and preceding the first step of evolution in Stanley Kubrik's 2001 A Space Odyssey

This?

DoomYoshi wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Biblical rabbit hole? Why are we talking about the Bible, or even the 'established' timeline of the Bible? There are over 200 religions and cultures over the world that recorded and passed on orally and in written form a very similar story about the great flood. Shall we conclude all their stories have the same timeline?

Timelines and the one version out of 200+ that you choose to start with aside, I'm not sure any of this relates to how so many have come to the conclusion that there was no great flood. I would be curious to see your source for the official established timeline for a story in the Book of Genesis, if you would be so kind.

Over 200 cultures all started similar manners of civilization including agriculture. Agriculture works best in flood plains, but if the floods come early or late, your livelihood can be ruined. It's not surprising that floods became the chief "big bad".

In 1816 a volcano erupted that caused the sky to darken worldwide and it snowed in New York in July. This is a real even and yet it's not part of our American mythology at all. Why is Johnny Appleseed more well known than the year without a summer? Why are there hundreds of accounts of Santa Claus but few accounts of the reproductive pathways of chaetognaths? Why does every culture have an account of dragons but only one (modern) culture has an account of DNA?

Well, at least I can still say you always give a most interesting spin to things! To answer, probably for similar reasons as to why the great flood is so quick to be denied. It was taken out of textbooks and therefore 'cuz separation of church and state!' is all one needs to know that when they hear about the great flood they are supposed to laugh at it.

I just looked into Mount Tambora, and the first relevant thing I take away from that is the .7-1.3 degree (f) drop in earth temperature which forced humanity mostly on parts of 2 continents to chill out and kick it starvation style for at least one summer. The global temperature that marked the end of the last ice age rose 18 degrees (f). I would award you with the first pieces of scientific data that provide evidence of the degree spike along with evidence of the time span it took for the temperature spike, but since Notyou2 came close with his sarcastic guess of 24 hours. I'll give him a chance to elaborate first. He won't elaborate though, he never does. But I'll still wait a bit anyways cuz ya never know!

There's the first whiff of just how great the great flood was...

Phatscotty wrote:Luckily, I do have the patience to wait for someone who wants to and can talk about the all the water resulting from the melting of the last ice age. Just curious, and this has nothing to do with religion or religious texts. What do you think happened to all the water resulting from the melting of the ice sheets marking the end of the last ice age? Hint, the North American ice sheet spanned from the North Pole to Kentucky and over Canada the ice sheet was stacked up to 2 miles thick.

The volume of ice in the Laurentide ice sheet is estimated to be in the ballpark of 25 million cubic kilometers (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract), or about 6 million cubic miles. If the average ice thickness were 2 miles (I think that's as little high, but no worries), that would be a surface area of 3 million square miles, which is about 3/4 of the size of Canada.

Now, ice does expand when it melts, but only by about 10%. So let's say that there is an extra 7 million cubic miles of water to add to the oceans. It turns out that there about 300 million cubic miles of water in the ocean. So sea level would have risen by about 2%. Since the average depth of the ocean is about 2.3 miles, that would translate to an average sea level rise of 241 feet. I think more accurate estimates would give you more like 150 feet, but still, that's a lot of water.

Now, Noah allegedly come to rest on the top of Ararat. Which is over 16,000 feet tall. So we seem to be missing a few ice sheets.

phats wrote:Nobody knew what a dinosaur was until 1938, so everybody 'knew' there was no such thing as dinosaurs in 1937.

wut

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

phats wrote:Nobody knew what a dinosaur was until 1938, so everybody 'knew' there was no such thing as dinosaurs in 1937.

wut

Come on, I was ready to let that one go =/

You're more patient than I am.

-TG

Metsfanmax wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

phats wrote:Nobody knew what a dinosaur was until 1938, so everybody 'knew' there was no such thing as dinosaurs in 1937.

wut

Come on, I was ready to let that one go =/

Nah, it's cool. Making it about a side point of a side point is better than a spell-check rebuttal anyways.

Sure, some guy found a femur from a dinosaur in the 1700's, but he thought it confirmed the giants of the Bible. Nobody knew it was a dinosaur. Then, in 1822, some teeth were found! They were believed to be from giant animals that escaped Noah's Arc! Even the bone-wars up until 1892 , there were still only theories and speculation about what it was they were digging up, where they came from, and when. GIANT LIZARDS!!! close, but no cigar. The first dinosaur skeleton to be displayed in the world was in the late 1800's.

For 15 years -- from 1868 to 1883 -- Hadrosaurus foulkii was the only mounted dinosaur skeleton on display anywhere in the world. In 1879, it became the first dinosaur skeleton to be displayed in Europe when the Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh acquired a copy.

In the 1900's, finally the scientific community began to give their attention to dinosaurs, and there was 'a lot of enthusiasm!' So, very few people might have known what a dinosaur was. The people who dug up fossils and first confirmed the theories and put the first skeletons together and introduced it through journalism and people reading those journals, but when did 'everyone' know what a dinosaur was, or when did dinosaurs become 'well known'?

Of course, anyone of you feel free to let me know what year it was when dinosaurs were first introduced to students on schools, which would mark the point when everyone started learning about dinosaurs, alluding to everyone knowing about dinosaurs?

19.....wut?