What do you all think about this paper/article?

[The IbanezerScrooge]

It only looks like I'm making it up, because science is in the habit of removing it.

"Putting it back" and "making it up" are two different things.

If I come to you and claim an elephant ran through and ransacked my house and we go to my house and everything is as we would expect sans elephant, everything in its place, no broken windows, dishes in their cabinets, furniture arranged for living, which is more likely: an elephant ransacked my house and then a miracle occurred and put everything back or that an elephant did not, in fact, ransack my house?

 

[AV1611VET]

If I come to you and claim an elephant ran through and ransacked my house and we go to my house and everything is as we would expect sans elephant, everything in its place, no broken windows, dishes in their cabinets, furniture arranged for living, which is more likely: an elephant ransacked my house and then a miracle occurred and put everything back or that an elephant did not, in fact, ransack my house?

Give it up, sir.

Science can take a hike.

And take their lies with them.

 

[Astrid]

You're just making things up that are not in evidence. You cant demonstrate anything that you're saying here to be true.

Dismissed.

We've a word here for people who make things up.

I do encounter such people in my work and
personal life.

When I catch them at it, that's it. I will have
nothing more to do with them.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Give it up, sir.

Science can take a hike.

And take their lies with them.

So sad.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, it hasn't.

I have a copy of your claim written on flimsy paper somewhere around here...

 

[AV1611VET]

We've a word here for people who make things up.

What do you call people who leave out important details of a narrative, then claim said narrative was researched?

I do encounter such people in my work and personal life.

Fiction writers make it their vocation.

When I catch them at it, that's it.

Uh-huh.

There goes a whole genre of literature you read, I take it?

I will have nothing more to do with them.

No Mark Twain on your shelves?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a copy of your claim written on flimsy paper somewhere around here...

Stop blaming the paper for what your lying scientists write on it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stop blaming the paper for what your lying scientists write on it.

No scientist wrote my bible. It was a chruch.

 

[keith99]

Oh, I am biased. Reality biases my opinion. The biblical account of the flood could not have happened the way it's portrayed. Genetic evidence does not support a genetic bottleneck of 8 individuals a few thousand years ago. Physics renders the narrative of flooding the whole earth to the highest peak in 40 days untenable. Biology refutes the 2 of each "kind" on an ark for 2 years tended by 8 people. The ark itself likely would not have been sea worthy based on the description given, etc. etc.

And again, why should we trust the biblical account as being anything other than copied and embellished fiction when it's so far removed from any actual event it might have been based on, even further according to this paper, when we have a more ancient, original flood story that differs dramatically from the biblical version?

It seems to me that you and everyone else are missing the elephant in the room (intentional reference to other posts).

The introduction cited in the OP includes.

A date around 2900 BC cannot be reconciled with the Genesis text as an eyewitness account of a real flood that devastated the Mesopotamian plain, killing all of its known inhabitants except those on the Ark. On the other hand, a devastating flood at 5700 BC could have had this effect, and is much more consistent with geological evidence for the date of severe flooding episodes in the ancient Middle East.

This makes it pretty clear the paper is discussing a regional flood, not a worldwide flood.

The idea of a world wide flood is not something based on Scripture, it is a creation of a comic book reading by certain fundamentalist groups.

That an eye witness to a regional flood would say it covered everything DOES NOT imply that Mount Everest was under water any more than an eyewitness to Katrina saying the same thing does.

 

[AV1611VET]

No scientist wrote my bible.

But they sure take from It.

It was a church.

Churches don't tell only half the story, then call it "research".

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea of a world wide flood is not something based on Scripture,

Then let's consider the points that are usually left out:

1. Why was the Ark built?
2. Why were the animals brought to it?
3. Why were birds aboard the Ark?
4. Why didn't people just vacate the area?
5. How did the Ark get into the mountains of Ararat?

 

[Hans Blaster]

But they sure take from It.

I checked the references in my papers, no bible quotes. Don't need a bible to do science and it would probably be a hindrance.

Churches don't tell only half the story, then call it "research".

I have no idea what this means. No church ever told me to "do some research". (They were rather infamous for insisting that *they* do all of the examination of the texts and once burned people for reading the bible.)

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

It seems to me that you and everyone else are missing the elephant in the room (intentional reference to other posts).

The introduction cited in the OP includes.



This makes it pretty clear the paper is discussing a regional flood, not a worldwide flood.

The idea of a world wide flood is not something based on Scripture, it is a creation of a comic book reading by certain fundamentalist groups.

That an eye witness to a regional flood would say it covered everything DOES NOT imply that Mount Everest was under water any more than an eyewitness to Katrina saying the same thing does.

Oh, I got that. I thought the paper was relatively well written and contained cogent arguments and evidence of local flooding events in the region that could be the origin/inspiration of the flood stories. I questioned why the author, though put any stock in the biblical story when he's shown that it's likely even further removed, by thousands of years, from these original flood events when there is a more ancient tale, and the biblical story is a pretty clear rip-off of the Sumerian tale.

I certainly don't deny that the story could be interpreted as a local event, but the fact is many, many Christians do read the flood story as having covered the whole world, which would presumably include Everest, which was my point to AV about Christians getting their own stories and interpretations straight before telling everyone else they're wrong and science to "take a hike."

 

[Astrid]

It seems to me that you and everyone else are missing the elephant in the room (intentional reference to other posts).

The introduction cited in the OP includes.



This makes it pretty clear the paper is discussing a regional flood, not a worldwide flood.

The idea of a world wide flood is not something based on Scripture, it is a creation of a comic book reading by certain fundamentalist groups.

That an eye witness to a regional flood would say it covered everything DOES NOT imply that Mount Everest was under water any more than an eyewitness to Katrina saying the same

It does say "all".
Just coz something is not true hardly
keeps people from writing it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just coz something is not true hardly keeps people from writing it.

Like the words: "Prenatal Wonder Drug" or "GO with throttle-up" or "Unsinkable"?

 

[Lost Witness]

Just coz something is not true hardly
keeps people from writing it.

Feel that way evolution and gender identity

 

[Hans Blaster]

Feel that way evolution and gender identity

Never met anyone before who didn't have a gender identity. What is it like?

 

[AV1611VET]

Never met anyone before who didn't have a gender identity. What is it like?

Speaking of that, does science back Bruce Jenner → Caitlyn Jenner?

 

[Ophiolite]

One small problem:

The universe didn't exist in 9500 BC.

How do you know? You weren't there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One small problem:

The universe didn't exist in 9500 BC.

Thanks to telescopes we can actually observe 9500 BC (or so) [and simultaneously see our own future]

Scientists catch real-life Death Star devouring a planet in 1st-of-its-kind discovery