Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Astrid]

One "disproof" of The Flood" boils down to how come nobody noticed? I believe that what Steve is trying to do is identify a gap or discontinuity in the course of human civilization at the relevant time period, based on what he conceives to be unexplained developments in religion and technology.

Glancing thru it, that’s what it seemed about.

 

[stevevw]

And what is the point you are trying to make?

Ah that there were cultures around at about the time of the last major flood that were pretty advanced and not simple premitive humans. That something happened that caused many of these cultures to disappear relatively quick and then reemerge in what we call the birth of civilisation around Mesopotamia. Something like that anyway.

Irrespective of how far Aboriginal peoples "advanced their beliefs" before we largely destroyed their cultures by trying to convert them into good Christians following a Western culture, we had a first hand view of hunter gatherer Palaeolithic/Mesolithic type cultures representative of what you would describe as being primitive.

Not really. Aboriginals were not representative of how far primitive humans had evolved. When Australia was dicovered in the late 1800's cultureds going back at least 4,000 years were way more advanced than Aboriginals. In fact Aboriginals represented a deminishing human kind as the world was discovered.

In fact more advanced humans had come and gone before wee dfisdcovered Aboriginals. But that doesn't also mean that Aboriginals were not advanced in their own way and probably were longer than most being they are one of the oldest indigenous peoples.

Their culture was not into the materialism the west was but they were way more advanced in understanding nature and spirituality. Their temples were the rocks like Uluru (Ayres rock) and other natural sites. But they were every bit advanced as those of Göbekli Tepe and other monolithic cultures who displayed their thoughts with human made structures. Their structures were not for looks or shelter like today but primarily for the gods.

Yet by your own admission for the reasons given their beliefs were sophisticated which highlights the folly of defining their ‘level of religion’ as being lower as they did not construct temples.

I already explained this false comparison. Advancement in thinking and beliefs doesn't have to be about temples or structures. In some ways indigenous peoples who don't build temples are more advanced as we are only finding out today how imposing human made stuff on nature can harm it.

So my logic is consistent. Whether by super structures or none at all the level of thinking and belief was way more advanced than we gave these people credit for.

I did not suggest the glacial flood was Biblical nor any other flood that followed.
Are you not alluding to the idea these post floods were catastrophic events wiping out civilizations in the process which incidentally is not supported by evidence.

I am proposing possible explanations for the common myth story of a global flood. Myths are usually based on some true event. They are then embellished by cultures. That so many different cultures (including the Aboriginals) have these stories is no coincident I think. Some big flood that was big enough for isolated peoples to experience and know about quite literally happened around 10 to 12,000 years ago.

The evidence shows that there was a big flood. Its found in the ground, in the stories of ancient people. In fact there is evidence for several major flood events. So theres no doubt some big flood event happened in our recent past.

This is factually wrong.
Göbekli Tepe was a centre for ritual and communal activities when hunter gathering existed. Archaeologists have not found evidence of residential structures or permanent settlement at the site for the obvious reason hunter gatherers, did not live in permanently built structures.

Have not found yet. You can't say absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Considering that Göbekli Tepe was deep undergound covered by earth may also mean the buildings they lived in are also deep underground.

In recent years we have been discovering more and more advanced cultures. They said the same thing about the Amazon that there were now advanced cultures. But thanks to advanced tech like Lidar we have discovered actual cities and pyramids and massive structures. Like I said they have discovered advanced cultures under the sea along coasts.

Archeologist say there are 3 or 4 areas we have hardly touched being the Amazon, the deserts, the oceans and the polar regions as due to continental drift these may have been tropical or temperate at one stage. So I would not be assuming anything at the moment.

There were no vast cities in South America dating 8-20,000 years ago, one of the oldest known complexes in South America, is Caral in Peru, dates back to around 4,500 years ago.

That cannot be correct according to recent discoveries.

Humans living in Amazon 10,000 years ago cultivated plants, study finds
Findings from Bolivia show plants were domesticated in region shortly after last ice age

Humans living in Amazon 10,000 years ago cultivated plants, study finds

Findings from Bolivia show plants were domesticated in region shortly after last ice age

www.theguardian.com

Despite the fact in your previous paragraph, you were referring to non-existent vast cities in South America older than those in Mesopotamia.

I explained the reasoning as to how these ancient cultures were far more advanced than we have given them credit for. Its not just about the structures. But in saying that the cultures of the Amazon had big structures. But they also had advanced beliefs and agriculture at a time when they were not suppose to some 11,000 years ago. The big structures is just one way of knowing they were advanced. But there are other ways such as the complex beliefs and knowledge of nature and agricture, astrology, geometry and engineering.

Here is something else to consider, in the first three centuries of Christianity’s existence no churches were built in the Roman empire, Christians assembled in private homes appropriately named ‘Home Churches’ as the religion at various times was declared illegal in the empire.
It was only after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire that churches as public buildings came into existence.

By your logic the ‘level of religion’ of Christianity increased as a result despite the fact from a theological perspective the basic principles of Christianity remained unchanged.

But the human desire to build monuments and temples to their gods does not change. The Christians were forced not to express this. In fact while the Christians were denied the Romans were building to their gods.

So it seems we can trace this same human desire going back to at least around the time of the last Ice age and possible flood event with cultures like Göbekli Tepe around the world and especially within the central cresent of Asia and the Middle East and into Turkey and Russia. Perhaps further into Germany, parts of Europe and North America.

This is straight out quote mining which does not support any of your statements.

The first link requires a subscription but referring to other references the oldest sites are 2500 years old, far younger than your supposed 8-20,000 year old vast cities.
The second link is of a submerged monolith which is not a city while the third is of a stonewall, likewise not a city, with the added information it was “likely built by hunter gatherer groups”

Like I said, it doesn't have to be cities, monoliths, walls, temples to be able to tell the people were more advanced that we thought. We look to the Egyptians but it appears there was similar throughout the world.

But it doesn't have to be about structures and as in some Amazonian natives who were using agriculture 10,000 years ago when we thought it only 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. Or the Aboriginals with their knowledge of nature and spirituality with the Dreamtime. They were way more advanced than we thought. In some ways we are finding that all the western knowledge is not as advanced as indigenous knowledge.

Once again more quote mining, like the wiki link it contradicts your argument as it states explicitly the hunter gatherer culture at Gobeki Tepe was abandoned to be replaced by settlements along with the introduction of crops and domesticated animals.

I think at the time of Gobeki Tepe humans were both hunter gatherers and setlling and forming cultures with religion and agriculture. It was sort of a transitional time. Some peoples were more advanced than others like the Amazonian culture were experimenting with agriculture in regenerating soils with charcoal and growing vegetables.

But its the Temple at Gobeki Tepe that gives us evidence of the ir advanced religion. It was advanced enough that they would build tempes to their gods or spirits. That it was important enough to actually control everything they did. Whereas before this we only see glimpses of religious practices such as placing a icon of the deceased in the grace. Or even burying someone in the first place.

An important point needs to be made here civilizations imply the existence of agriculture and animal domestication but the converse is not true. Civilization came after the introduction of agriculture and domestication as evidenced by the Neolithic age where the agricultural communities of the time were not considered cradles of civilization.

Yes and I am not meaning civilisation as in how we think today. Obviously for one there were less people. Though I think that some of the peack cultures like in the Amazon may have had millions living within a network of smaller big twons you could say. I mean London reached a million people in the 1800s so these were not small gatherings and pretty sophisticated.

But primarily its not just about the size but the level of knowledge and belief and I think there is evidence that around the time of the last iceage maybe a bit after when it was melting there were many pretty advanced cultures around the globe who more or less disappeared in a relatively short time.

If these cultures had such levels of knowledge ability and belief that can match what later cultures had in Mesopotamia and even Egptians and later achievements then what happened to the continuation of them all. They seem to disappear and then we don't hear much until the Egyptians and Greeks ect.

In other words if these culture going back 10,000 years could move and build with stone even bigger than the Egyptians who are only 4,000 years old then where are all the cities and structures with big monoliths between10,000 years and 4,000 years ago.

Let me ask a question that may help bring this back to the OP. I see your a Christian. Do you believe in Noahs Flood. Whether that is a worldwide or local event. Was there a person named Noah who was chosen and saved by God to save humankind.

 

[Gene2memE]

Not really. Aboriginals were not representative of how far primitive humans had evolved. When Australia was dicovered in the late 1800's cultureds going back at least 4,000 years were way more advanced than Aboriginals. In fact Aboriginals represented a deminishing human kind as the world was discovered.

Australia wasn't discovered in the late 1800s. Or even the late 1700s.

Willem Janszoon was potentially the first European to set foot on Australia and write down his voyage, in 1606. Certainly he was the first we have records for (albeit only in the form of copies of maps from about 30 years after his initial voyages).

In the same year Vaz de Torres, a Spaniard, also sailed around parts of northern Australia, including what is now known as the Torres Strait,

A small menagerie of Dutch explorers mapped parts of the northwest and west of Australia in the first half of the 17th century. By the 1660s, the Dutch had mapped the entire cost of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and most of the Western side of the Cape York peninsula and part of the Great Australia Bite.

There is circumstantial evidence of even earlier visits by Portuguese navigators. Maps produced in the mid 1500s by the Portuguese, French and Spanish show sections of the north and northwest coasts of Australia (some connected to Papua, others to Timor and even Java). There is speculation that these could be copies of even older (or purely speculative) Chinese maps.

 

[sjastro]

Ah that there were cultures around at about the time of the last major flood that were pretty advanced and not simple premitive humans. That something happened that caused many of these cultures to disappear relatively quick and then reemerge in what we call the birth of civilisation around Mesopotamia. Something like that anyway.

You missed the point; I was querying your contradiction that a “level of religion” is higher when building structures are involved, yet went on to admit Aboriginal beliefs are sophisticated for reasons that have nothing to do with this.

Not really. Aboriginals were not representative of how far primitive humans had evolved. When Australia was dicovered in the late 1800's cultureds going back at least 4,000 years were way more advanced than Aboriginals. In fact Aboriginals represented a deminishing human kind as the world was discovered.

In fact more advanced humans had come and gone before wee dfisdcovered Aboriginals. But that doesn't also mean that Aboriginals were not advanced in their own way and probably were longer than most being they are one of the oldest indigenous peoples.

Their culture was not into the materialism the west was but they were way more advanced in understanding nature and spirituality. Their temples were the rocks like Uluru (Ayres rock) and other natural sites. But they were every bit advanced as those of Göbekli Tepe and other monolithic cultures who displayed their thoughts with human made structures. Their structures were not for looks or shelter like today but primarily for the gods.

Here again you contradict yourself, Australian aboriginals fail your “level of religion” test yet had an advanced spiritual understanding.

The point I was making however is the Australian aboriginal along with around five other cultures from around the world where hunter gatherer societies existed into modern times, gives us a snapshot into their rich religious beliefs which should not be evaluated through the lens of organized religions as you have done.

I already explained this false comparison. Advancement in thinking and beliefs doesn't have to be about temples or structures. In some ways indigenous peoples who don't build temples are more advanced as we are only finding out today how imposing human made stuff on nature can harm it.

So my logic is consistent. Whether by super structures or none at all the level of thinking and belief was way more advanced than we gave these people credit for.

Your logic is not consistent for the reasons given, other posters have also queried your “level of religion” criteria where you are now engaging in special pleading.

I am proposing possible explanations for the common myth story of a global flood. Myths are usually based on some true event. They are then embellished by cultures. That so many different cultures (including the Aboriginals) have these stories is no coincident I think. Some big flood that was big enough for isolated peoples to experience and know about quite literally happened around 10 to 12,000 years ago.

The evidence shows that there was a big flood. Its found in the ground, in the stories of ancient people. In fact there is evidence for several major flood events. So theres no doubt some big flood event happened in our recent past.

If this big flood is supposed to be equivalent to a global flood it fails for the same reasons given as for the Biblical version, evidence of where these floods have occurred shows they did not happen at the same time and were therefore local not global.

Have not found yet. You can't say absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Considering that Göbekli Tepe was deep undergound covered by earth may also mean the buildings they lived in are also deep underground.

In recent years we have been discovering more and more advanced cultures. They said the same thing about the Amazon that there were now advanced cultures. But thanks to advanced tech like Lidar we have discovered actual cities and pyramids and massive structures. Like I said they have discovered advanced cultures under the sea along coasts.

Archeologist say there are 3 or 4 areas we have hardly touched being the Amazon, the deserts, the oceans and the polar regions as due to continental drift these may have been tropical or temperate at one stage. So I would not be assuming anything at the moment.

The “have not found yet” conflated with the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” remark is the argument from ignorance fallacy as it tries to turn a speculation into a statement of fact.

Scientists from all fields deal with evidence not non-evidence.

That cannot be correct according to recent discoveries.

Humans living in Amazon 10,000 years ago cultivated plants, study finds
Findings from Bolivia show plants were domesticated in region shortly after last ice age

Humans living in Amazon 10,000 years ago cultivated plants, study finds

Findings from Bolivia show plants were domesticated in region shortly after last ice age

www.theguardian.com

Try reading the last paragraph in my previous post which was very clear in explaining that while civilizations (= cities) implies the existence of agriculture and animal domestication the converse is not true, as civilization (=cities) came after the introduction of agriculture and domestication.

I explained the reasoning as to how these ancient cultures were far more advanced than we have given them credit for. Its not just about the structures. But in saying that the cultures of the Amazon had big structures. But they also had advanced beliefs and agriculture at a time when they were not suppose to some 11,000 years ago. The big structures is just one way of knowing they were advanced. But there are other ways such as the complex beliefs and knowledge of nature and agricture, astrology, geometry and engineering.

Do I need to remind you the blunder you made was in claiming these cultures lived in cities that were 8-20,000 years old.

But the human desire to build monuments and temples to their gods does not change. The Christians were forced not to express this. In fact while the Christians were denied the Romans were building to their gods.

So it seems we can trace this same human desire going back to at least around the time of the last Ice age and possible flood event with cultures like Göbekli Tepe around the world and especially within the central cresent of Asia and the Middle East and into Turkey and Russia. Perhaps further into Germany, parts of Europe and North America.

Let me remind you “the level of religion” is determined by what is built, this is your standard not mine and what we have here is another example of special pleading.

Like I said, it doesn't have to be cities, monoliths, walls, temples to be able to tell the people were more advanced that we thought. We look to the Egyptians but it appears there was similar throughout the world.

But it doesn't have to be about structures and as in some Amazonian natives who were using agriculture 10,000 years ago when we thought it only 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. Or the Aboriginals with their knowledge of nature and spirituality with the Dreamtime. They were way more advanced than we thought. In some ways we are finding that all the western knowledge is not as advanced as indigenous knowledge.

Once again more special pleading………….

I think at the time of Gobeki Tepe humans were both hunter gatherers and setlling and forming cultures with religion and agriculture. It was sort of a transitional time. Some peoples were more advanced than others like the Amazonian culture were experimenting with agriculture in regenerating soils with charcoal and growing vegetables.

But its the Temple at Gobeki Tepe that gives us evidence of the ir advanced religion. It was advanced enough that they would build tempes to their gods or spirits. That it was important enough to actually control everything they did. Whereas before this we only see glimpses of religious practices such as placing a icon of the deceased in the grace. Or even burying someone in the first place.

Wrong the evidence shows Gobeki Tepe was abandoned as a ritual ceremonial site when the inhabitants of the region ceased being hunter gatherers and adopted agriculture and animal domestication.

After a few paragraphs of special pleading you have gone back to your assertion that monuments determine the level of religion, it’s all very confusing.

Yes and I am not meaning civilisation as in how we think today. Obviously for one there were less people. Though I think that some of the peack cultures like in the Amazon may have had millions living within a network of smaller big twons you could say. I mean London reached a million people in the 1800s so these were not small gatherings and pretty sophisticated.

But primarily its not just about the size but the level of knowledge and belief and I think there is evidence that around the time of the last iceage maybe a bit after when it was melting there were many pretty advanced cultures around the globe who more or less disappeared in a relatively short time.

If these cultures had such levels of knowledge ability and belief that can match what later cultures had in Mesopotamia and even Egptians and later achievements then what happened to the continuation of them all. They seem to disappear and then we don't hear much until the Egyptians and Greeks ect.

In other words if these culture going back 10,000 years could move and build with stone even bigger than the Egyptians who are only 4,000 years old then where are all the cities and structures with big monoliths between10,000 years and 4,000 years ago.

The evidence clearly refutes your claim, there are structures found between 10,000 and 4,000 years ago made by hunter gatherers and settlers.
Technically the word is settlements not cities as cities are linked to civilization the earliest of which occurred in Mesopotamia.

Let me ask a question that may help bring this back to the OP. I see your a Christian. Do you believe in Noahs Flood. Whether that is a worldwide or local event. Was there a person named Noah who was chosen and saved by God to save humankind.

This is answer I gave to another individual who asked the same question.

I don’t accept the Exodus either because there is no archaeological evidence but I accept the Babylonian captivity or the military campaigns of the pharaoh Shishak as mentioned in the Bible as it is attested to by archaeological evidence.

 

[stevevw]

Australia wasn't discovered in the late 1800s. Or even the late 1700s.

Willem Janszoon was potentially the first European to set foot on Australia and write down his voyage, in 1606. Certainly he was the first we have records for (albeit only in the form of copies of maps from about 30 years after his initial voyages).

In the same year Vaz de Torres, a Spaniard, also sailed around parts of northern Australia, including what is now known as the Torres Strait,

A small menagerie of Dutch explorers mapped parts of the northwest and west of Australia in the first half of the 17th century. By the 1660s, the Dutch had mapped the entire cost of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and most of the Western side of the Cape York peninsula and part of the Great Australia Bite.

There is circumstantial evidence of even earlier visits by Portuguese navigators. Maps produced in the mid 1500s by the Portuguese, French and Spanish show sections of the north and northwest coasts of Australia (some connected to Papua, others to Timor and even Java). There is speculation that these could be copies of even older (or purely speculative) Chinese maps.

Yes and I am sure that this happened for most nations. But still 1600's or 1200's Aboriginals would have had their unique culture and I am sure had many of the ways they are today considering the Dreamtime which goes back 1,000s of years. Ulluru has been worshiped for 1,000's of years. So has the Kangaroo and other animals. Theres even stories of serpents and they have their own creation and flood myths.

 

[sjastro]

Australia wasn't discovered in the late 1800s. Or even the late 1700s.

Willem Janszoon was potentially the first European to set foot on Australia and write down his voyage, in 1606. Certainly he was the first we have records for (albeit only in the form of copies of maps from about 30 years after his initial voyages).

In the same year Vaz de Torres, a Spaniard, also sailed around parts of northern Australia, including what is now known as the Torres Strait,

A small menagerie of Dutch explorers mapped parts of the northwest and west of Australia in the first half of the 17th century. By the 1660s, the Dutch had mapped the entire cost of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and most of the Western side of the Cape York peninsula and part of the Great Australia Bite.

There is circumstantial evidence of even earlier visits by Portuguese navigators. Maps produced in the mid 1500s by the Portuguese, French and Spanish show sections of the north and northwest coasts of Australia (some connected to Papua, others to Timor and even Java). There is speculation that these could be copies of even older (or purely speculative) Chinese maps.

There is also strong evidence that Aboriginals in northern Australia were in contact with the Macassan traders from Indonesia in the 17th century.
It is very difficult to explain how Macassan loanwords found their way into Aboriginal languages in the region and the presence of tamarind trees which are not indigenous to Australia.

There are also non mainstream theories (@Astrid take note) the Chinese explored Australia in the 15th century during the Ming Dynasty as the Da Ming Hunyi Tu and Zheng He maps supposedly show parts of the Australian coast.

 

[stevevw]

You missed the point; I was querying your contradiction that a “level of religion” is higher when building structures are involved, yet went on to admit Aboriginal beliefs are sophisticated for reasons that have nothing to do with this.

Yes and as I explained a higher or more complex religion is not just about structures, though structures is a explicit example of the sophistication of belief we can obviously see and touch. But the complexity of religion can also be found in a cultures stories, icons, text, carlvings and practices which are not structural.

Both tell us that cultural beliefs back then were pretty complex and not simple as thought.

Here again you contradict yourself, Australian aboriginals fail your “level of religion” test yet had an advanced spiritual understanding.

No your making me use only one way to measure how sophisticated a cultures belief is. Your insisting it must only be by temples and structures. I am saying we can also tell by stories, icons, calvings and practices.

That Aboriginals have the Dreamtime is evidence of a complex belief. Its not something simple cavemen think of. That they have all these dances and cermonies, like smoking ceremonies, welcome to country, artwork on rocks is evidence of their complexity. Yet none are structures.

The aim is to determine a cultures level of religion. It doesn't matter what evidence. Like any investigation we use a number of lines such as archeological, textual, anthropology, evolutionary ect. They all tell us something and the more we have the better. Both structural and in expressions such as art and icons the evdience shows a complexity back some 10,000 years and most likely where the Flood myths stem from.

Why can you think of any other time where many cultures could have experienced a flood event that would cause them to be part of their religion. I'm not saying that this is the origin but proposing that it may be.

The point I was making however is the Australian aboriginal along with around five other cultures from around the world where hunter gatherer societies existed into modern times, gives us a snapshot into their rich religious beliefs which should not be evaluated through the lens of organized religions as you have done.

I agree and I was not trying to say that temples and structures are the only measure. Like you says Aboriginal culture and belief is rich. Just as rich as the cultures that build temples and monliths. Its just the monoliths are more obvious and easy to see. You can't miss the Giza Pyramid or the giant blocks that make up walls. Why couldn't they have just built noraml structures. Because they wanted to say something about their gods with the monoliths.

Your logic is not consistent for the reasons given, other posters have also queried your “level of religion” criteria where you are now engaging in special pleading.

No I don't care how you determine religious complexity. Only that we can determine it or not. So all lines of evidence need to be considered. If you say non structural evidence like the richness of Aboriginal beleifs is evdience for its sophistication then I agree. But that doesn't negate that the structural evidence is also evidence for complexity. Its just more obvious and easy to use.

If this big flood is supposed to be equivalent to a global flood it fails for the same reasons given as for the Biblical version, evidence of where these floods have occurred shows they did not happen at the same time and were therefore local not global.

I am not necessarily trying to prove a global flood in the bible. I am trying to find out where the biblical and other cultural flood stories come from. There must have been a flood of some sort.

All I can say is that any flood would have had to have happened when humans were able to experience something of that nature and then able to articulate that to future generations. That means a certain level of intelligence. Which means a certain level of religious understanding. That could only have happened in the last maybe 20,000 years. The only possible major flood that falls into that time is the Younger Dryas and the melting of the glaciers around 10 to 12,000 years ago.

If there are any others it will be interesting to find out. But as the OP is talking about giant ripples then this may be related to those floods. I know there is also a theory regarding the Scablands around East Washington and North America but they may be more local. Though its east to see how flooding could have come from the Younger Dryas as it also affected North America. Theres also the Grand Canyon which some say was the result of a global flood.

The “have not found yet” conflated with the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” remark is the argument from ignorance fallacy as it tries to turn a speculation into a statement of fact.

No its not. Its acknowledging that there is no evidence at the moment. But also being open to possible evdience in the future. Its not taking a strict position either way by saying 'definitely not and can never happen'.

But I think theres enough evidence to pause for thought with whats being discovered recently. The fact that we have found ruins in places we thought were empty such as under the desert with even more pyramids, under coast lines and in the Amazon which have not been fully examined we should not be making any claims just yet.

I think as better tech comes and we get access to places we could not before there is going to be some big discoveries. If these cultures were pre flood then they are all in places where they would be hard to get to like under deserts and oceans. Or even under the glaciers. But as they melt we are dicovering more.

https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-ruins-found-antarctica

Try reading the last paragraph in my previous post which was very clear in explaining that while civilizations (= cities) implies the existence of agriculture and animal domestication the converse is not true, as civilization (=cities) came after the introduction of agriculture and domestication.

Ok but also remember that being a city is also not the measure of the level of religious belief and technilogical knowhow. The point being cultures like in the Amazon had agricultural practices 10,000 years ago maybe longer. They later built cities as a result before Mesopotamia which has been regarded as the birth of civilisation around 5 or 6,000 years ago.

Do I need to remind you the blunder you made was in claiming these cultures lived in cities that were 8-20,000 years old.

Yes there were cities all around at least 8 to 10,000 years ago like Byblos for example which goes back to around 8800BC. So thats 10,000 plus years. But there were some even older around that area which is not too far from Gobeki Tepe. You should know the city of Jericho which is around 11,00 years old. Its interesting that most of these oldest cultures are around the Middle East.

Let me remind you “the level of religion” is determined by what is built, this is your standard not mine and what we have here is another example of special pleading.

But what am I special pleading for. To include all forms of evidence that determines the level of religion and not just restrict it to temples, structures or art or tech or practices. To include all these forms thats all. Thats not special pleading thats just rational and logical. Otherwise we miss some of the evidence.

The aim is to find out how complex and sophisticated religious belief was back 10,000 or so years ago when a gian flood may have happened which caused the flood stories.

Once again more special pleading………….

Lol my reasoning to explain its not special pleading is now 'special pleading and special pleading'. Its like the 'Witch test'. Can't win either way.

I thought you said Aboriginals had a rich culture without any temple buildings or cities. I agree thats one way to tell the level of complexity. Another is by the structures build and still another is by the drawinsg and ornaments they make on those buildings. I am saying no matter which way you look at it these ancient people had rich and complex beliefs even way back then.

Wrong the evidence shows Gobeki Tepe was abandoned as a ritual ceremonial site when the inhabitants of the region ceased being hunter gatherers and adopted agriculture and animal domestication.

Well there certainly was cities around like Byblos which is in the region and Jericho and many others which were more organised and used agriculture. But it doesn't even matter if there was no agriculture.

The point is showing there was a certain level of religious belief and knowledge. Building cities 8 or 10,000 years ago along with complex religious sites like Gobeki Tepe together show both complex religion and a good level of knowledge to be able to come up with gods and flood stories.

Your trying to box me to an either/or choice about the evidence ie it has to be all about eithjer structures or no structures. It has to be about cities or no cities or agriculture or none. Its about all of the above when it comes to evidence for religious and knowledge levels.

After a few paragraphs of special pleading you have gone back to your assertion that monuments determine the level of religion, it’s all very confusing.

Lol its like playing tennis. Ok from this point on I am making it clear that its 'all the above' and not limited to one or the other. So the religious complexity and sophistication can be found in the richness of cultures without structures like the Aboriginals.

In the massive structures like modern day temples speak of their religion, the despictions, icons and stories they tell and the practices like worship of statues, animals, the cosmos or nature. They all count as evidence. None can be excluded to be able to work out the level of religion a culture has.

I will finish the rest later as it will be too long.

Regards Steve

 

[stevevw]

The evidence clearly refutes your claim, there are structures found between 10,000 and 4,000 years ago made by hunter gatherers and settlers.
Technically the word is settlements not cities as cities are linked to civilization the earliest of which occurred in Mesopotamia.

But your making a false representation of what I am proposing. I am saying that the level of knowledge and belief of cultures going back around 10,000 years around the time the last ice age were far more advanced than we thought. Enought to be able to build these monoliths which today we think is a great feat of technical knowhow and ability.

But also of a sophisticated religion enough that they could build temples of worship like in later times and have complex belief systems that they could give birth to stories like the flood myth. Which has been passed down through generations and cultures.

Like I said it doesn't matter which form of evidence, use all forms to determine the level of knowledge and religion. Was it enough to come up with flood stories. Or was the flood stories about those cultures who were around 10 to 12,000 years ago when the flood came. I don't know. Thats what I am proposing and that is what we are trying to work out.

Like I said you may have your own views about how this happened or whether it happened at all. But factually a giant flood event happened around 10,000 years ago and we can trace fairly sophisticated cultures back to that time. Is this the flood they are talking about in the Flood myths. Is this where it originated.

Or do you think each culture has their own Flood event that they write about.

This is answer I gave to another individual who asked the same question.

I don’t accept the Exodus either because there is no archaeological evidence but I accept the Babylonian captivity or the military campaigns of the pharaoh Shishak as mentioned in the Bible as it is attested to by archaeological evidence.

Ok but you didn't really answer my question. Do you believe there was a real flood regarding Noah whether local or global. It was a real event or completely made up.

Apart from that I see a problem with your timeline as far as what we are talking about. Which is the level of religious belief and knowledge to be able to come up with a flood myth.

The first problem I see is that religious belief say with Stone Henge and Gobeki Tepe having more or less the same ritual practices despite being 6,000 years apart. So Stone Henge type belief didn't start at Stone Henge. It started way earlier.

Also the same with Nabta Playa belief using stars it seems this practice was around 4,000 years earlier with Gobeki Tepe.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1751696X.2024.2373876#d1e605

Thats an example of how the levels of religion get confused and how most archeologists dismissed higher levels of religious belief 10,000 plus years ago.

As to the evidence meeting the bible stories of Noahs flood and the Exodus or any biblical story I would not be too quick to dismiss. Certainly not the Exodus. This is not the right thread but there is a lot of new evidence with discoveries but also relooking at existing evidence in new light supporting the Exodus.

The same with Noahs flood which I assume the OP regarding gian ripples is alluding to. There is evidence that there were major floods and one that may have covered most of the norther hemisphere if not a large portion around the melting north pole glaciers.

The flood stories that come from Mesopotamia may well be from the great floods of the Younger Dryas for which cultures like those of Gobeki Tepe experienced.

I assume the OP is citing the giant ripples as possible evidence of the flood or a giant flood. I am just proposing another angle of evidence which is more anthropological and cultural which is alluding to the same thing as the physical scars left on the earth. Together they may build a case for a giant flood that may be the source of the Flood myths like the bible and Noah.

 

[Astrid]

Ah that there were cultures around at about the time of the last major flood that were pretty advanced and not simple premitive humans. That something happened that caused many of these cultures to disappear relatively quick and then reemerge in what we call the birth of civilisation around Mesopotamia. Something like that anyway.

Not really. Aboriginals were not representative of how far primitive humans had evolved. When Australia was dicovered in the late 1800's cultureds going back at least 4,000 years were way more advanced than Aboriginals. In fact Aboriginals represented a deminishing human kind as the world was discovered.

In fact more advanced humans had come and gone before wee dfisdcovered Aboriginals. But that doesn't also mean that Aboriginals were not advanced in their own way and probably were longer than most being they are one of the oldest indigenous peoples.

Their culture was not into the materialism the west was but they were way more advanced in understanding nature and spirituality. Their temples were the rocks like Uluru (Ayres rock) and other natural sites. But they were every bit advanced as those of Göbekli Tepe and other monolithic cultures who displayed their thoughts with human made structures. Their structures were not for looks or shelter like today but primarily for the gods.

I already explained this false comparison. Advancement in thinking and beliefs doesn't have to be about temples or structures. In some ways indigenous peoples who don't build temples are more advanced as we are only finding out today how imposing human made stuff on nature can harm it.

So my logic is consistent. Whether by super structures or none at all the level of thinking and belief was way more advanced than we gave these people credit for.

I am proposing possible explanations for the common myth story of a global flood. Myths are usually based on some true event. They are then embellished by cultures. That so many different cultures (including the Aboriginals) have these stories is no coincident I think. Some big flood that was big enough for isolated peoples to experience and know about quite literally happened around 10 to 12,000 years ago.

The evidence shows that there was a big flood. Its found in the ground, in the stories of ancient people. In fact there is evidence for several major flood events. So theres no doubt some big flood event happened in our recent past.

Have not found yet. You can't say absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Considering that Göbekli Tepe was deep undergound covered by earth may also mean the buildings they lived in are also deep underground.

In recent years we have been discovering more and more advanced cultures. They said the same thing about the Amazon that there were now advanced cultures. But thanks to advanced tech like Lidar we have discovered actual cities and pyramids and massive structures. Like I said they have discovered advanced cultures under the sea along coasts.

Archeologist say there are 3 or 4 areas we have hardly touched being the Amazon, the deserts, the oceans and the polar regions as due to continental drift these may have been tropical or temperate at one stage. So I would not be assuming anything at the moment.

That cannot be correct according to recent discoveries.

Humans living in Amazon 10,000 years ago cultivated plants, study finds
Findings from Bolivia show plants were domesticated in region shortly after last ice age

Humans living in Amazon 10,000 years ago cultivated plants, study finds

Findings from Bolivia show plants were domesticated in region shortly after last ice age

www.theguardian.com

I explained the reasoning as to how these ancient cultures were far more advanced than we have given them credit for. Its not just about the structures. But in saying that the cultures of the Amazon had big structures. But they also had advanced beliefs and agriculture at a time when they were not suppose to some 11,000 years ago. The big structures is just one way of knowing they were advanced. But there are other ways such as the complex beliefs and knowledge of nature and agricture, astrology, geometry and engineering.

But the human desire to build monuments and temples to their gods does not change. The Christians were forced not to express this. In fact while the Christians were denied the Romans were building to their gods.

So it seems we can trace this same human desire going back to at least around the time of the last Ice age and possible flood event with cultures like Göbekli Tepe around the world and especially within the central cresent of Asia and the Middle East and into Turkey and Russia. Perhaps further into Germany, parts of Europe and North America.

Like I said, it doesn't have to be cities, monoliths, walls, temples to be able to tell the people were more advanced that we thought. We look to the Egyptians but it appears there was similar throughout the world.

But it doesn't have to be about structures and as in some Amazonian natives who were using agriculture 10,000 years ago when we thought it only 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. Or the Aboriginals with their knowledge of nature and spirituality with the Dreamtime. They were way more advanced than we thought. In some ways we are finding that all the western knowledge is not as advanced as indigenous knowledge.

I think at the time of Gobeki Tepe humans were both hunter gatherers and setlling and forming cultures with religion and agriculture. It was sort of a transitional time. Some peoples were more advanced than others like the Amazonian culture were experimenting with agriculture in regenerating soils with charcoal and growing vegetables.

But its the Temple at Gobeki Tepe that gives us evidence of the ir advanced religion. It was advanced enough that they would build tempes to their gods or spirits. That it was important enough to actually control everything they did. Whereas before this we only see glimpses of religious practices such as placing a icon of the deceased in the grace. Or even burying someone in the first place.

Yes and I am not meaning civilisation as in how we think today. Obviously for one there were less people. Though I think that some of the peack cultures like in the Amazon may have had millions living within a network of smaller big twons you could say. I mean London reached a million people in the 1800s so these were not small gatherings and pretty sophisticated.

But primarily its not just about the size but the level of knowledge and belief and I think there is evidence that around the time of the last iceage maybe a bit after when it was melting there were many pretty advanced cultures around the globe who more or less disappeared in a relatively short time.

If these cultures had such levels of knowledge ability and belief that can match what later cultures had in Mesopotamia and even Egptians and later achievements then what happened to the continuation of them all. They seem to disappear and then we don't hear much until the Egyptians and Greeks ect.

In other words if these culture going back 10,000 years could move and build with stone even bigger than the Egyptians who are only 4,000 years old then where are all the cities and structures with big monoliths between10,000 years and 4,000 years ago.

Let me ask a question that may help bring this back to the OP. I see your a Christian. Do you believe in Noahs Flood. Whether that is a worldwide or local event. Was there a person named Noah who was chosen and saved by God to save humankind.

You really blow a crater in your credibility
talking about some ”last major flood”, an event not
known to geologists.

Logic based off this centrepiece of nonsense
is only consistent in being worthless.

Back to o.p.

To me, believing in Noah etc is a belief, ie, a matter if faith.
Theres no ark, theres no evidence other than a story.

All ( all ) physical evidence is against it.

I don’t have a belief thst there was no ark.

I accept or reject on evidence.

More people should try that.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes and as I explained a higher or more complex religion is not just about structures, though structures is a explicit example of the sophistication of belief we can obviously see and touch. But the complexity of religion can also be found in a cultures stories, icons, text, carlvings and practices which are not structural.

Both tell us that cultural beliefs back then were pretty complex and not simple as thought.

No your making me use only one way to measure how sophisticated a cultures belief is. Your insisting it must only be by temples and structures. I am saying we can also tell by stories, icons, calvings and practices.

That Aboriginals have the Dreamtime is evidence of a complex belief. Its not something simple cavemen think of. That they have all these dances and cermonies, like smoking ceremonies, welcome to country, artwork on rocks is evidence of their complexity. Yet none are structures.

The aim is to determine a cultures level of religion. It doesn't matter what evidence. Like any investigation we use a number of lines such as archeological, textual, anthropology, evolutionary ect. They all tell us something and the more we have the better. Both structural and in expressions such as art and icons the evdience shows a complexity back some 10,000 years and most likely where the Flood myths stem from.

Why is it important to your argument to determine a cultures "level of religion?" Whatever that may mean to you, and certainly learning about the different religious beliefs of the various ancient cultures is interesting, but what's your point?

Why can you think of any other time where many cultures could have experienced a flood event that would cause them to be part of their religion. I'm not saying that this is the origin but proposing that it may be.

What difference does it make whether whatever local flooding occurred to ancient civilizations had specific religious implications for them or not?

I agree and I was not trying to say that temples and structures are the only measure. Like you says Aboriginal culture and belief is rich. Just as rich as the cultures that build temples and monliths. Its just the monoliths are more obvious and easy to see. You can't miss the Giza Pyramid or the giant blocks that make up walls. Why couldn't they have just built noraml structures. Because they wanted to say something about their gods with the monoliths.

No I don't care how you determine religious complexity. Only that we can determine it or not. So all lines of evidence need to be considered. If you say non structural evidence like the richness of Aboriginal beleifs is evdience for its sophistication then I agree. But that doesn't negate that the structural evidence is also evidence for complexity. Its just more obvious and easy to use.

I am not necessarily trying to prove a global flood in the bible. I am trying to find out where the biblical and other cultural flood stories come from. There must have been a flood of some sort.

There were without doubt many floods at different times disastrous to early civilizations established in floodplains. Many legendary stories would be passed down about them from generation to generation with various religious "spin." So it should not be surprising that "flood" became an archetype for a devastating natural disaster with religious implications. No single large flood would be required for this meme to be common cultural property. Such that, when the authors of the Noah story were lookjng to write a story about a really, really big world-destroying natural disaster that they could put their own religious spin to, a really, really big world-destroying flood was natural choice.

 

[stevevw]

You really blow a crater in your credibility
talking about some ”last major flood”, an event not
known to geologists.

Logic based off this centrepiece of nonsense
is only consistent in being worthless.

Wait a minute lol. You can't just make a claim and then move on without it being questioned. I thought that was good investigation. To be open to alternative views and then weight up the evidence.

I cannot understand how you can say there is no major flood happening during the last iceage. The simple fact that we are not in an ice age now means much of the ice has melted and have guess what when ice melts. But there is plenty of evidence for other ideas that may have caused flood events and they should not be dismissed.

For most of the 20th-century geologists believed the transition out of the ice age was a gradual process. New evidence, however, is revealing that prehistoric earth faced far more violent conditions. The Younger Dryas period has been documented as one of the most turbulent stages in prehistory. Now the evidence of a planet-shaking flood during this time is mounting.

Discover How The Younger Dryas Flood Shaped Prehistoric Earth

The idea of a biblical flood was dismissed by scientists as religious nonsense. One scientist, however, set out to prove that the evidence for the Younger Dryas Flood explained how the North American Ice Sheet melted so suddenly at the end of the last ice age. To date, no other theory can...

humanoriginproject.com

Back to o.p.

Yes sir lol.

To me, believing in Noah etc is a belief, ie, a matter if faith.
Theres no ark, theres no evidence other than a story.

Once again I am not so sure. I have been amazed about the evidence that has been coming out supporting other biblical stories that were said to be not based on real events.

All ( all ) physical evidence is against it.

Ok not even a local event where ancient people may have percieved a world wide flood because all the could see is water. Maybe even a story of a real event that has been made legend. I don't think cultures just make stuff up based on nothing happening that it lasts in folklore.

There has to be some true event for it to stay worthy as a legend. Like Hannibal and Gengas Khan feats were made into lengend. Or a Knight who went off to battle some wild beast that was terrorising the village was made into St George the Dragon slayer.

I don’t have a belief thst there was no ark.

Hum really. That takes all the fun out of it lol.

I accept or reject on evidence.

More people should try that.

Thats right. If theres no evidence than it can tentatively be discounted. But not completely rejected as a possibility. All possibilities including ones that were rejected in the past still need to be open for consideration. How many times have ideas been rejected only to come back and be proven correct all along.

As tech improves and we get access to difficult places we dicover more and more.

Of course the other side of the coin is when it comes to faith in the moral of the story then that can never be verified with scientific evidence. But its good to also see the bible come alive through archeology as well.

 

[dlamberth]

Wait a minute lol. You can't just make a claim and then move on without it being questioned. I thought that was good investigation. To be open to alternative views and then weight up the evidence.

I cannot understand how you can say there is no major flood happening during the last iceage. The simple fact that we are not in an ice age now means much of the ice has melted and have guess what when ice melts. But there is plenty of evidence for other ideas that may have caused flood events and they should not be dismissed.

What can be dismissed, because of lack of evidence, is a world wide Biblical type of flood. That there were local floods, that seems to be agreed upon from what I see here. Sometimes we even have physical evidence of those local floods. Through story telling over time those floods stories sometimes grew in size and in some cases entered the culture and religious realm.

 

[armchairscholar]

Floods leave distinctive geological evidence behind. Among other things, current ripples provide some of that physical evidence. The supposed size and violence of the Noah's flood would have left behind humongous size current ripples all over the Earth surface. But they simply don't exist. There's a lot of different kinds of geological features one sees in floods that simply are not there when looking for evidence of a Noah type global flood. Current ripples are one of those missing features.

The video below provides a good but short teaching tool on current ripples created by the Ice Age Floods that ran through the Pacific Northwest. In my time studying the Ice Floods I've seen these ripples. Nick Zentner teaches geology at Central Washington University. I've learned a lot of Pacific Northwest geology from him. Enjoy the learning lesson.

Floods leave distinctive geological evidence behind. Among other things, current ripples provide some of that physical evidence. The supposed size and violence of the Noah's flood would have left behind humongous size current ripples all over the Earth surface. But they simply don't exist. There's a lot of different kinds of geological features one sees in floods that simply are not there when looking for evidence of a Noah type global flood. Current ripples are one of those missing features from Noah's supposed flood.

Thank you for sharing this with me. It's always stimulating to see how science and faith intersect. Your point about the geological evidence, or lack thereof, for a global flood like Noah's is a common one. And indeed, from a purely geological perspective, the evidence for a massive, singular, world-covering flood just isn't there.

I don't approach the story of Noah's Ark as a literal historical account. Instead, I see it as a powerful allegory, rich in symbolism about God's mercy, humanity's capacity for both good and evil, and the promise of renewal. It speaks to deeper truths about our relationship with the divine and the importance of living a righteous life.

Psychologically stories like Noah's Ark serve a vital role in our collective consciousness. They provide a framework for understanding complex themes like sin, redemption, and the fragility of life. These stories, passed down through generations, offer comfort, guidance, and a sense of shared history.

Although the physical evidence for a global flood as described in the Bible may be lacking, the story itself continues to resonate deeply. It reminds us of the power of faith, the importance of listening to our conscience, and the ever-present possibility of a new beginning.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and this fascinating video on current ripples. It's through these kinds of open dialogues that we grow in both our understanding of the world and our faith.

What are your thoughts on this? I'd love to hear your perspective.

 

[stevevw]

Why is it important to your argument to determine a cultures "level of religion?" Whatever that may mean to you, and certainly learning about the different religious beliefs of the various ancient cultures is interesting, but what's your point?

Do you even know that I have an arguement or are just throwing the evidence out there for people to decide. I guess the arguement is to investigate whether there was a giant flood and if so who were the people most likely around at that time, before and after.

So to do that I think we need to understand their beliefs because the Flood story is basically a religious story. So for example part of a possible belief of Göbekli Tepe is that they predicted a major flood through the use of astrology. If thats the case then this may explain why cultures believed in flood myths as other cultures also used astrology as part of their belief system back then. The more you understand the belief system the more insight you will get into how perhaps the myth was created.

This is another line of evidence. I know there is the physical evidence or the objective evidence. We can go down that route as well and thats a whole can of worms. But the other aspect to the evidence is the mindset, the knowledge and beliefs which actually give us direct understanding of what was going on at the time. If it matches the physical evidence then you are building a case.

I pretty well know the physical evidence. But lately I have been getting into the psychology of what people were thinking and believing back then. That seems more interesting. Like with Aboriginals. There is no structures but we can get to understand their mindset and beliefs by their stories and rock art begin to understand how they seen the world.

What difference does it make whether whatever local flooding occurred to ancient civilizations had specific religious implications for them or not?

Well I guess its a case of working out whether they are all talking about the same event or different events. Its interesting that many cultures have the same story more or less down to many details. Just applied to their particular cultural understanding.

There were without doubt many floods at different times disastrous to early civilizations established in floodplains. Many legendary stories would be passed down about them from generation to generation with various religious "spin." So it should not be surprising that "flood" became an archetype for a devastating natural disaster with religious implications. No single large flood would be required for this meme to be common cultural property. Such that, when the authors of the Noah story were lookjng to write a story about a really, really big world-destroying natural disaster that they could put their own religious spin to, a really, really big world-destroying flood was natural choice.

Ok I know myths are sort of embellishments about a true event over time. But thats why I guess its important to look at these different flood myths compare them, trace them back to see if there was an origin. Try to line up the cultures belief with real life floods that happened.

I mean if there was such a massive flood during the Younger Dryas around the northern hemisphere where around that time most people lived then you have probably found the source for most cultures. There was no bigger flood and those who were around or rather survived would have a story to tell before all other floods. That could not have rivalled any flood.

I just find the idea of many different floods make up the Flood story of the bible. Theres too many small details to get right and it would be too much a coincident. And if the reason their are so much the same is because they are copying the one before it then that just points to an original source such as the Younger Dryas.

But I am not saying this is 100% the case. I am just positing the evidence and saying that this is one possible scenario which sort of fits the evidence to explain the predominance of the flood story myths which are remarkably similar.

Someone can present an alternative I don't care. It would be good if they did as it gives more food for thought. But we can't just say theres no explanation or its just all make believe. Such beliefs are usually based on real events and then embellished.

 

[stevevw]

What can be dismissed, because of lack of evidence, is a world wide Biblical type of flood. That there were local floods, that seems to be agreed upon from what I see here. Sometimes we even have physical evidence of those local floods. Through story telling over time those floods stories sometimes grew in size and in some cases entered the culture and religious realm.

Yes I agree. But I think we can nartrow down some contenders that may account for the high degree of consistency in the flood stories. If there was a super doper flood in the recent past that may align with beliefs.

It seems to me a pretty major flood event, in fact the greatest flood event since humans could be so sophisticated with their beliefs to have such a belief about such a major event that would have probably affected most of the world back then was the Younger Dryas flood.

 

[Astrid]

Wait a minute lol. You can't just make a claim and then move on without it being questioned. I thought that was good investigation. To be open to alternative views and then weight up the evidence.

I cannot understand how you can say there is no major flood happening during the last iceage. The simple fact that we are not in an ice age now means much of the ice has melted and have guess what when ice melts. But there is plenty of evidence for other ideas that may have caused flood events and they should not be dismissed.

For most of the 20th-century geologists believed the transition out of the ice age was a gradual process. New evidence, however, is revealing that prehistoric earth faced far more violent conditions. The Younger Dryas period has been documented as one of the most turbulent stages in prehistory. Now the evidence of a planet-shaking flood during this time is mounting.

Discover How The Younger Dryas Flood Shaped Prehistoric Earth

The idea of a biblical flood was dismissed by scientists as religious nonsense. One scientist, however, set out to prove that the evidence for the Younger Dryas Flood explained how the North American Ice Sheet melted so suddenly at the end of the last ice age. To date, no other theory can...

humanoriginproject.com

Yes sir lol.

Once again I am not so sure. I have been amazed about the evidence that has been coming out supporting other biblical stories that were said to be not based on real events.

Ok not even a local event where ancient people may have percieved a world wide flood because all the could see is water. Maybe even a story of a real event that has been made legend. I don't think cultures just make stuff up based on nothing happening that it lasts in folklore.

There has to be some true event for it to stay worthy as a legend. Like Hannibal and Gengas Khan feats were made into lengend. Or a Knight who went off to battle some wild beast that was terrorising the village was made into St George the Dragon slayer.

Hum really. That takes all the fun out of it lol.

Thats right. If theres no evidence than it can tentatively be discounted. But not completely rejected as a possibility. All possibilities including ones that were rejected in the past still need to be open for consideration. How many times have ideas been rejected only to come back and be proven correct all along.

As tech improves and we get access to difficult places we dicover more and more.

Of course the other side of the coin is when it comes to faith in the moral of the story then that can never be verified with scientific evidence. But its good to also see the bible come alive through archeology as well.

i can see how you claim I said “ there is no majar flood happening..”
although i said nothing of the sort.
You just- plain- made- it- up.

We are still in an ice age, probably midpoint in an interglacial period.

A great many outburst floods have ovvurred and still,occur.

The bible flood story is proven fiction as readily shown, no matter how much you’re amazed or by what you are amazed.

if you want to believe it anyway, terrif.

Floods happen all the time. People tell,stories, So What?

oh and I am not “ sir” , lol or otherwise.

 

[sjastro]

@stevevw

Your last two responses to me are the classic ‘Proof by Verbosity’ fallacy.
Do you think wall to wall text enhances your arguments or was it designed to obfuscate the issue?

Creationists in particular like to use a variation of this fallacy known as the Gish Gallop and the standard countermeasure is to focus only on the weakest argument.
This proved difficult because your posts contain a myriad of very weak arguments some of which are totally false but in the end I decided to pick this one.

This was your response when I refuted your claim there are cities in the Amazon that are 8000-20000 years old.

Yes there were cities all around at least 8 to 10,000 years ago like Byblos for example which goes back to around 8800BC. So thats 10,000 plus years. But there were some even older around that area which is not too far from Gobeki Tepe. You should know the city of Jericho which is around 11,00 years old. Its interesting that most of these oldest cultures are around the Middle East.

I hate to rain on your parade but the Middle East is not in the Amazon and you can’t even get your arithmetic right.
In your link on Byblos which incidentally is located in Lebanon and not in the Amazon, it explicitly states the region was first settled between 8800 – 7000 BC but “During the 3rd millennium BC, the first signs of a town can be observed, with the remains of well-built houses of uniform size. This was the period when the Canaanite civilization began to develop.”
So if the city first appeared in the 3rd millennium BC it cannot any older than around 5000 years.

Your failure to differentiate between a settlement and a city is an equivocation fallacy and symptomatic of your posts in general, where comments are based on opinion and facts distorted to conform with the opinion.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you even know that I have an arguement or are just throwing the evidence out there for people to decide. I guess the arguement is to investigate whether there was a giant flood and if so who were the people most likely around at that time, before and after.

So to do that I think we need to understand their beliefs because the Flood story is basically a religious story. So for example part of a possible belief of Göbekli Tepe is that they predicted a major flood through the use of astrology. If thats the case then this may explain why cultures believed in flood myths as other cultures also used astrology as part of their belief system back then. The more you understand the belief system the more insight you will get into how perhaps the myth was created.

This is another line of evidence. I know there is the physical evidence or the objective evidence. We can go down that route as well and thats a whole can of worms. But the other aspect to the evidence is the mindset, the knowledge and beliefs which actually give us direct understanding of what was going on at the time. If it matches the physical evidence then you are building a case.

I pretty well know the physical evidence. But lately I have been getting into the psychology of what people were thinking and believing back then. That seems more interesting. Like with Aboriginals. There is no structures but we can get to understand their mindset and beliefs by their stories and rock art begin to understand how they seen the world.

Well I guess its a case of working out whether they are all talking about the same event or different events. Its interesting that many cultures have the same story more or less down to many details. Just applied to their particular cultural understanding.

Ok I know myths are sort of embellishments about a true event over time. But thats why I guess its important to look at these different flood myths compare them, trace them back to see if there was an origin. Try to line up the cultures belief with real life floods that happened.

I mean if there was such a massive flood during the Younger Dryas around the northern hemisphere where around that time most people lived then you have probably found the source for most cultures. There was no bigger flood and those who were around or rather survived would have a story to tell before all other floods. That could not have rivalled any flood.

I just find the idea of many different floods make up the Flood story of the bible. Theres too many small details to get right and it would be too much a coincident. And if the reason their are so much the same is because they are copying the one before it then that just points to an original source such as the Younger Dryas.

But I am not saying this is 100% the case. I am just positing the evidence and saying that this is one possible scenario which sort of fits the evidence to explain the predominance of the flood story myths which are remarkably similar.

Someone can present an alternative I don't care. It would be good if they did as it gives more food for thought. But we can't just say theres no explanation or its just all make believe. Such beliefs are usually based on real events and then embellished.

You are apparently channeling Graham Hancock, or at least watching his Ancient Apocalypse science fiction series on Netflix. But I think you owe us a specific source for the notion that anything at Gobekli Tepe predicts the flood. I can't find out anything about such a prediction except that the archaeologists actually working the site think it's a humbug.

 

[stevevw]

i can see how you claim I said “ there is no majar flood happening..”
although i said nothing of the sort.
You just- plain- made- it- up.

We are still in an ice age, probably midpoint in an interglacial period.

A great many outburst floods have ovvurred and still,occur.

The bible flood story is proven fiction as readily shown, no matter how much you’re amazed or by what you are amazed.

if you want to believe it anyway, terrif.

Floods happen all the time. People tell,stories, So What?

oh and I am not “ sir” , lol or otherwise.

All I am doing is proposing that the biggest flood as a result of the Younger Dryas in the last 10 to 12,000 years may be the source of the Flood stories.

 

[stevevw]

You are apparently channeling Graham Hancock, or at least watching his Ancient Apocalypse science fiction series on Netflix. But I think you owe us a specific source for the notion that anything at Gobekli Tepe predicts the flood. I can't find out anything about such a prediction except that the archaeologists actually working the site think it's a humbug.

No I am just citing the evidence. A major flood is a well known event that is proven by the science around 10,000 years ago. Gobekli Tepe existed at around the same time.

I already linked a paper on this.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1751696X.2024.2373876#d1e222

As for the Younger Dryas this is also proven as a possible cause of the sudden flood. But it doesn't matter what was the cause. The fact is the science proves there was a massive earth shattering flood around 10,000 years ago at the time of Gobekli Tepe which wiped out the mega fauna.

For most of the 20th-century geologists believed the transition out of the ice age was a gradual process. New evidence, however, is revealing that prehistoric earth faced far more violent conditions. The Younger Dryas period has been documented as one of the most turbulent stages in prehistory. Now the evidence of a planet-shaking flood during this time is mounting.

Discover How The Younger Dryas Flood Shaped Prehistoric Earth

The idea of a biblical flood was dismissed by scientists as religious nonsense. One scientist, however, set out to prove that the evidence for the Younger Dryas Flood explained how the North American Ice Sheet melted so suddenly at the end of the last ice age. To date, no other theory can...

humanoriginproject.com

Identification of Younger Dryas outburst flood path from Lake Agassiz to the Arctic Ocean

Identification of Younger Dryas outburst flood path from Lake Agassiz to the Arctic Ocean - Nature

Our current concepts of abrupt climate change are influenced by palaeoclimate evidence for events such as the Younger Dryas cold interval, in which massive climate changes occurred essentially instantaneously. It is thought that an injection of fresh water from the retreating Laurentide Ice...

www.nature.com