Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
krypter3

Crazy Creationism

49 posts in this topic

Sorry if this has been reposted, but I've just seen it and wow. This guy is all kinds of crazy, it was semi interesting until he got to the flood -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a critique of this kind of mistaken analysis and purposeful misrepresentation of the geological record. These people are either ignorant of geology or just plain knowingly lie.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also easy to disprove the flood is a historical accounting argument

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also easy to disprove the flood is a historical accounting argument

On the contrary... it is quite historical. Ignoring the obvious OP post on the dinosaur issue, which is a riot and simply unbelievable for the most part. One should not confuse a historical flood with the dinosaurs in any way. Since creationists have this very narrow tendency to insist on a 7000 year old world, they are forced to make some very obvious and sometimes ignorant mistakes like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also easy to disprove the flood is a historical accounting argument

The real issue is the scale of the flood.

Although there was no flood that covered the entire Earth, there were major mega floods happened at the end of the last ice age.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The real issue is the scale of the flood.

Although there was no flood that covered the entire Earth, there were major mega floods happened at the end of the last ice age.

There was one event that approached the epic scale of a global flood and also explains the details we have in a number of religious texts including the bible.

Impact Craters as Sources of Megatsunami Generated Chevron Dunes

Verifying the Sources of Holocene Age Megatsunami Deposits

Tsunamis from Impacts

Ancient Crash, Epic Wave

Google Earth View of Burckle Crater

The Burckle Impact Event

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched 16.01 minutes before my brain could'nt take it any longer.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary... it is quite historical. Ignoring the obvious OP post on the dinosaur issue, which is a riot and simply unbelievable for the most part. One should not confuse a historical flood with the dinosaurs in any way. Since creationists have this very narrow tendency to insist on a 7000 year old world, they are forced to make some very obvious and sometimes ignorant mistakes like that.

The real issue is the scale of the flood.

Although there was no flood that covered the entire Earth, there were major mega floods happened at the end of the last ice age.

That there was a flood is quite probable but that's where it ends. The rest of the biblical story is based on earlier versions elsewhere and in some cases greatly inflated with additional materials added to flesh out the story. To me a certain amount of detail must be accurate for it to be a historical account. IMO the biblical account is just a story based on a real event but there is not sufficient accuracy in the details to make it a historical account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some good evidence pointing to the flood of the Caspian sea as being the biblical flood. There are ancient communities under the water, and the dates and geography are close.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That there was a flood is quite probable but that's where it ends. The rest of the biblical story is based on earlier versions elsewhere and in some cases greatly inflated with additional materials added to flesh out the story. To me a certain amount of detail must be accurate for it to be a historical account. IMO the biblical account is just a story based on a real event but there is not sufficient accuracy in the details to make it a historical account.

Oh, in what way? what details must be sufficiently accurate for it to be a historical account?

And why should the story be accurate to the degree expected of a modern day culture when there is not a single historical account in the entire world that holds to this modernist viewpoint. People expect these accounts, whether they be biblical or not to conform to this ides that they must be objective, factual pieces of information in all regards, when this is one of the greatest illsions of history itself...

One should ask why we have one or two quotes which we all know but always forget when confronted with actual history...

"History is written by the victors."

And are the victors going to tell the objective and factual truth? Not by a long shot.

“History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.”

― Winston Churchill

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

“Half of writing history is hiding the truth”

― Joss Whedon

Per chance are any of these lies?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, in what way? what details must be sufficiently accurate for it to be a historical account?

And why should the story be accurate to the degree expected of a modern day culture when there is not a single historical account in the entire world that holds to this modernist viewpoint. People expect these accounts, whether they be biblical or not to conform to this ides that they must be objective, factual pieces of information in all regards, when this is one of the greatest illsions of history itself...

One should ask why we have one or two quotes which we all know but always forget when confronted with actual history...

"History is written by the victors."

And are the victors going to tell the objective and factual truth? Not by a long shot.

“History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.”

― Winston Churchill

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

“Half of writing history is hiding the truth”

― Joss Whedon

Per chance are any of these lies?

Id say the victors are Christians, since they are the dominant religion upon the earth. Still, what is accepted as history is not necessarily in the bible. Your logic dosnt really hold up. The flood story is in all likely hood an ancient oral tradition based upon some truth, but changed over time.

You should see how tribes in remote islands near Thailand survived the tsunamis... Yup you guessed it. Oral traditions involving a battle of the water and land spiirits after the the world tree was shaken. ;):D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Id say the victors are Christians, since they are the dominant religion upon the earth. Still, what is accepted as history is not necessarily in the bible. Your logic dosnt really hold up. The flood story is in all likely hood an ancient oral tradition based upon some truth, but changed over time.

You should see how tribes in remote islands near Thailand survived the tsunamis... Yup you guessed it. Oral traditions involving a battle of the water and land spiirits after the the world tree was shaken. ;):D

The bible wasn't written by christians, especially the parts referring to this particular thread.

And you think that wasn't truth to them? When they tell the story, that is the exact truth they are speaking to their children, they are telling it the way the see it through their eyes, not yours. You can call those tribesmen ignorant all you want but just because you can explain the facts doesn't make their story any less true.

What is accepted as history as you call it is simply an interpretation of events according to the information available, so it cannot really be called historical, all it can claim is that it is the historians understanding of the events, it is no more likely than any other.

For example, why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? The common "historical" interpretation is because they wanted to destroy the fleet based there so that they could invade the pacific unoposed. True, but what people don't really know is that the USA actually started that war.

http://whatreallyhap...6315/pearl.html

So, the victors do write the history books. But it doesn't mean they are "historical".

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.”

― Winston Churchill

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

“Half of writing history is hiding the truth”

― Joss Whedon

Now getting back to the issue at hand, the events in the bible are indeed historical, they are history as seen from the viewpoint of the people who wrote them. Are they factual? Well now that is altogether another question.

But it is a question that cannot be answered because of one thing, evidence. But wait, we do have evidence.... there was indeed a great flood that did indeed drown the land.

Now according to the bible the Flood was caused by rain and by the fountains of the deep being broken open. In other words something other than just rain caused the flood. The mention of the fountains of the deep being broken open indicates a cataclysm of some kind that tore the waters from their correct place.

The majority of the myths describe a torrential, long duration rainstorm, in many cases accompanied by a huge tsunami. The water is often described as hot, sometimes coming as hot ocean swells, sometimes as burning rain. The described durations of the flood storm in the various myths, when plotted, form a bell-shaped curve with the great majority clustering between four and ten days. Tsunamis are described as extending between 15 and 100 km inland. Survivors typically find refuge in places between 150 and 300 meters above sea level.

Supernatural creatures are associated with the flood storm in nearly half the cases studied. Typical are giant snakes or water serpents, giant birds, giant horned snakes, a fallen angel, a star with fiery tail, a tongue of fire, and similar elongated things in or from the sky. Looking in detail at descriptions in the mythology, particularly those of the Indian subcontinent, we see a close resemblance to the naked-eye appearance of a near-earth post-perihelion comet.

Sixteen of the myths examined describe when the flood storm occurred in terms of seasonal indicators. Fourteen myths are from Northern Hemisphere groups, and place the event in the spring. The one from the Southern Hemisphere places it in the fall, that is, spring north of the equator. Seven stories give the time in terms of lunar phase, six at the time of the full Moon, another two days later. Stories from Africa and South America say it happened at the time of a lunar eclipse, which can only occur when the Moon is full. A 4th century BC Babylonian account specifies a full Moon in late April or early May.

Chinese sources recount how the cosmic monster Gong Gong knocked over a pillar of heaven and caused flooding toward the end of the reign of Empress Nu Wa, around 2810 BC. The 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho says there was an "immense disaster" (but doesn't say what kind) during the reign of the pharaoh Semerkhet, around 2800 BC. The tomb of Semerkhet's successor, Qa'a, was built of poorly dried mud bricks and timbers showing unusual decay; the following pharaohs of the second dynasty relocated the royal cemetery to higher ground. Analysis of astrological references in multiple myths from the Middle East, India and China, describing planetary conjunctions associated with the flood storm, whose actual times of occurrence can be reconstructed using contemporary astronomy software, leads one to conclude that the event happened on or about May 10, 2807 BC.

What was it that happened?

Well it seems the myths provide clues to that, too. For one thing, they report massive rain, falling for days at a time. This turns out to be exactly what can be expected if a large comet plunged into the deep ocean, it would loft nearly ten times its mass of water into the upper atmosphere, where it would spread widely and then fall, taking days to empty the skies. A large impact in the ocean would also cause gigantic tsunamis, as many of the myths report. In India, for example, Tamil myths tell of the sea rushing 100 km inland, a hundred meters deep.

Plotting the distribution of great flood myths together with specific reported phenomena like directions from which great winds blew or tsunamis came, we find that the most efficient way to account for them is by positing a very large comet impact in the central or southern Indian Ocean. This might not account very well for flood myths in the Americas, but flooding there could have resulted from partial disintegration of the incoming comet, with two or more pieces falling on different parts of the earth over a period of hours or days. Some of the myths speak of multiple events happening in close succession. But the really big impact, the most lethal of the bunch, occurred somewhere south of Madagascar.

And this particular impact crater has in fact been found. It is 30 km wide. It is 3800 meters below the surface of the ocean, and gues what it happened between 2800 B.C. and 3000 B.C. It would have caused a 2,000,000 megaton explosion and caused a number of succesive mega tsunamis that would have been over 200 meters in height. It is called the Burckle crater and It is in the Mid Indian Ocean.

splashid.jpg

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The bible wasn't written by christians, especially the parts referring to this particular thread.

And you think that wasn't truth to them? When they tell the story, that is the exact truth they are speaking to their children, they are telling it the way the see it through their eyes, not yours. You can call those tribesmen ignorant all you want but just because you can explain the facts doesn't make their story any less true.

What is accepted as history as you call it is simply an interpretation of events according to the information available, so it cannot really be called historical, all it can claim is that it is the historians understanding of the events, it is no more likely than any other.

For example, why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? The common "historical" interpretation is because they wanted to destroy the fleet based there so that they could invade the pacific unoposed. True, but what people don't really know is that the USA actually started that war.

http://whatreallyhap...6315/pearl.html

So, the victors do write the history books. But it doesn't mean they are "historical".

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.”

― Winston Churchill

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

“Half of writing history is hiding the truth”

― Joss Whedon

Now getting back to the issue at hand, the events in the bible are indeed historical, they are history as seen from the viewpoint of the people who wrote them. Are they factual? Well now that is altogether another question.

But it is a question that cannot be answered because of one thing, evidence. But wait, we do have evidence.... there was indeed a great flood that did indeed drown the land.

Now according to the bible the Flood was caused by rain and by the fountains of the deep being broken open. In other words something other than just rain caused the flood. The mention of the fountains of the deep being broken open indicates a cataclysm of some kind that tore the waters from their correct place.

The majority of the myths describe a torrential, long duration rainstorm, in many cases accompanied by a huge tsunami. The water is often described as hot, sometimes coming as hot ocean swells, sometimes as burning rain. The described durations of the flood storm in the various myths, when plotted, form a bell-shaped curve with the great majority clustering between four and ten days. Tsunamis are described as extending between 15 and 100 km inland. Survivors typically find refuge in places between 150 and 300 meters above sea level.

Supernatural creatures are associated with the flood storm in nearly half the cases studied. Typical are giant snakes or water serpents, giant birds, giant horned snakes, a fallen angel, a star with fiery tail, a tongue of fire, and similar elongated things in or from the sky. Looking in detail at descriptions in the mythology, particularly those of the Indian subcontinent, we see a close resemblance to the naked-eye appearance of a near-earth post-perihelion comet.

Sixteen of the myths examined describe when the flood storm occurred in terms of seasonal indicators. Fourteen myths are from Northern Hemisphere groups, and place the event in the spring. The one from the Southern Hemisphere places it in the fall, that is, spring north of the equator. Seven stories give the time in terms of lunar phase, six at the time of the full Moon, another two days later. Stories from Africa and South America say it happened at the time of a lunar eclipse, which can only occur when the Moon is full. A 4th century BC Babylonian account specifies a full Moon in late April or early May.

Chinese sources recount how the cosmic monster Gong Gong knocked over a pillar of heaven and caused flooding toward the end of the reign of Empress Nu Wa, around 2810 BC. The 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho says there was an "immense disaster" (but doesn't say what kind) during the reign of the pharaoh Semerkhet, around 2800 BC. The tomb of Semerkhet's successor, Qa'a, was built of poorly dried mud bricks and timbers showing unusual decay; the following pharaohs of the second dynasty relocated the royal cemetery to higher ground. Analysis of astrological references in multiple myths from the Middle East, India and China, describing planetary conjunctions associated with the flood storm, whose actual times of occurrence can be reconstructed using contemporary astronomy software, leads one to conclude that the event happened on or about May 10, 2807 BC.

What was it that happened?

Well it seems the myths provide clues to that, too. For one thing, they report massive rain, falling for days at a time. This turns out to be exactly what can be expected if a large comet plunged into the deep ocean, it would loft nearly ten times its mass of water into the upper atmosphere, where it would spread widely and then fall, taking days to empty the skies. A large impact in the ocean would also cause gigantic tsunamis, as many of the myths report. In India, for example, Tamil myths tell of the sea rushing 100 km inland, a hundred meters deep.

Plotting the distribution of great flood myths together with specific reported phenomena like directions from which great winds blew or tsunamis came, we find that the most efficient way to account for them is by positing a very large comet impact in the central or southern Indian Ocean. This might not account very well for flood myths in the Americas, but flooding there could have resulted from partial disintegration of the incoming comet, with two or more pieces falling on different parts of the earth over a period of hours or days. Some of the myths speak of multiple events happening in close succession. But the really big impact, the most lethal of the bunch, occurred somewhere south of Madagascar.

And this particular impact crater has in fact been found. It is 30 km wide. It is 3800 meters below the surface of the ocean, and gues what it happened between 2800 B.C. and 3000 B.C. It would have caused a 2,000,000 megaton explosion and caused a number of succesive mega tsunamis that would have been over 200 meters in height. It is called the Burckle crater and It is in the Mid Indian Ocean.

splashid.jpg

The bible wasn't written by christians, especially the parts referring to this particular thread.

And you think that wasn't truth to them? When they tell the story, that is the exact truth they are speaking to their children, they are telling it the way the see it through their eyes, not yours. You can call those tribesmen ignorant all you want but just because you can explain the facts doesn't make their story any less true.

What is accepted as history as you call it is simply an interpretation of events according to the information available, so it cannot really be called historical, all it can claim is that it is the historians understanding of the events, it is no more likely than any other.

For example, why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? The common "historical" interpretation is because they wanted to destroy the fleet based there so that they could invade the pacific unoposed. True, but what people don't really know is that the USA actually started that war.

http://whatreallyhap...6315/pearl.html

So, the victors do write the history books. But it doesn't mean they are "historical".

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.”

― Winston Churchill

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

“Half of writing history is hiding the truth”

― Joss Whedon

Now getting back to the issue at hand, the events in the bible are indeed historical, they are history as seen from the viewpoint of the people who wrote them. Are they factual? Well now that is altogether another question.

But it is a question that cannot be answered because of one thing, evidence. But wait, we do have evidence.... there was indeed a great flood that did indeed drown the land.

Now according to the bible the Flood was caused by rain and by the fountains of the deep being broken open. In other words something other than just rain caused the flood. The mention of the fountains of the deep being broken open indicates a cataclysm of some kind that tore the waters from their correct place.

The majority of the myths describe a torrential, long duration rainstorm, in many cases accompanied by a huge tsunami. The water is often described as hot, sometimes coming as hot ocean swells, sometimes as burning rain. The described durations of the flood storm in the various myths, when plotted, form a bell-shaped curve with the great majority clustering between four and ten days. Tsunamis are described as extending between 15 and 100 km inland. Survivors typically find refuge in places between 150 and 300 meters above sea level.

Supernatural creatures are associated with the flood storm in nearly half the cases studied. Typical are giant snakes or water serpents, giant birds, giant horned snakes, a fallen angel, a star with fiery tail, a tongue of fire, and similar elongated things in or from the sky. Looking in detail at descriptions in the mythology, particularly those of the Indian subcontinent, we see a close resemblance to the naked-eye appearance of a near-earth post-perihelion comet.

Sixteen of the myths examined describe when the flood storm occurred in terms of seasonal indicators. Fourteen myths are from Northern Hemisphere groups, and place the event in the spring. The one from the Southern Hemisphere places it in the fall, that is, spring north of the equator. Seven stories give the time in terms of lunar phase, six at the time of the full Moon, another two days later. Stories from Africa and South America say it happened at the time of a lunar eclipse, which can only occur when the Moon is full. A 4th century BC Babylonian account specifies a full Moon in late April or early May.

Chinese sources recount how the cosmic monster Gong Gong knocked over a pillar of heaven and caused flooding toward the end of the reign of Empress Nu Wa, around 2810 BC. The 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho says there was an "immense disaster" (but doesn't say what kind) during the reign of the pharaoh Semerkhet, around 2800 BC. The tomb of Semerkhet's successor, Qa'a, was built of poorly dried mud bricks and timbers showing unusual decay; the following pharaohs of the second dynasty relocated the royal cemetery to higher ground. Analysis of astrological references in multiple myths from the Middle East, India and China, describing planetary conjunctions associated with the flood storm, whose actual times of occurrence can be reconstructed using contemporary astronomy software, leads one to conclude that the event happened on or about May 10, 2807 BC.

What was it that happened?

Well it seems the myths provide clues to that, too. For one thing, they report massive rain, falling for days at a time. This turns out to be exactly what can be expected if a large comet plunged into the deep ocean, it would loft nearly ten times its mass of water into the upper atmosphere, where it would spread widely and then fall, taking days to empty the skies. A large impact in the ocean would also cause gigantic tsunamis, as many of the myths report. In India, for example, Tamil myths tell of the sea rushing 100 km inland, a hundred meters deep.

Plotting the distribution of great flood myths together with specific reported phenomena like directions from which great winds blew or tsunamis came, we find that the most efficient way to account for them is by positing a very large comet impact in the central or southern Indian Ocean. This might not account very well for flood myths in the Americas, but flooding there could have resulted from partial disintegration of the incoming comet, with two or more pieces falling on different parts of the earth over a period of hours or days. Some of the myths speak of multiple events happening in close succession. But the really big impact, the most lethal of the bunch, occurred somewhere south of Madagascar.

And this particular impact crater has in fact been found. It is 30 km wide. It is 3800 meters below the surface of the ocean, and gues what it happened between 2800 B.C. and 3000 B.C. It would have caused a 2,000,000 megaton explosion and caused a number of succesive mega tsunamis that would have been over 200 meters in height. It is called the Burckle crater and It is in the Mid Indian Ocean.

splashid.jpg

Jor el, another approach to myths that I have learned is they were used to give the lay of the cultural customs of the supernatural (beliefs/climate) at the time. It is a way to impart the rules, beliefs,customs and traditions of the times. Myths tell the cultural story as far as what a culture believes, not that what they believe is true, nor do they represent historical fact or even point to it. Myths are not the facts of the times, they deal with the supernatural.

This is not to discount that Myth was/is of great value, as it offered a way to acclimate a person (a crash course) into a cultures supernatural traditions. I give them that, but IMO you assign far more to them then is warranted. No one perception or approach can tell the whole story, it just gives parts. I think of it like a puzzle each POV gives a bigger understanding, yet no one piece contains the whole picture.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I lasted 20 minutes, time I will never get back. All kinds of crazy doesn't even begin to cover it. I don't know how much time he spends debunking the scientific community based on Jurassic Park and Michael Crichton but I would hazard that making that correlation for as much as a nano second would be too long by any sane person's standards - just saying.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor el, another approach to myths that I have learned is they were used to give the lay of the cultural customs of the supernatural (beliefs/climate) at the time. It is a way to impart the rules, beliefs,customs and traditions of the times. Myths tell the cultural story as far as what a culture believes, not that what they believe is true, nor do they represent historical fact or even point to it. Myths are not the facts of the times, they deal with the supernatural.

This is not to discount that Myth was/is of great value, as it offered a way to acclimate a person (a crash course) into a cultures supernatural traditions. I give them that, but IMO you assign far more to them then is warranted. No one perception or approach can tell the whole story, it just gives parts. I think of it like a puzzle each POV gives a bigger understanding, yet no one piece contains the whole picture.

What one believes and what one believes is true is exactly the same thing, another item one should consider, myth is not synonymous with fiction. And as you say, they deal with extraordinary events, which some people label supernatural which means outside of the normal natural world, which again does not mean they are untrue.

As for the 2nd bolded phrase... much like history is also only one perception or approach since no one can claim it to be factual.

As you may have read in the post you quoted, the POVS of quite a number of ancient civilizations give us exactly what the bible also claims... go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The term myth has all too often been misrepresented on this board, I think Tolkien had it spot on...

Myths, C.S. Lewis told J.R.R. Tolkien, were "lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver."

"No," Tolkien replied. "They are not lies." Far from being lies they were the best way — sometimes the only way — of conveying truths that would otherwise remain inexpressible. We have come from God, Tolkien argued, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic "progress" leads only to the abyss and the power of evil.

"In expounding this belief in the inherent truth of mythology," wrote Tolkien's biographer, Humphrey Carpenter, "Tolkien had laid bare the center of his philosophy as a writer, the creed that is at the heart of The Silmarillion." It is also the creed at the heart of all his other work. His short novel, Tree and Leaf, is essentially an allegory on the concept of true myth, and his poem, "Mythopoeia," is an exposition in verse of the same concept.

Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic "progress" leads only to the abyss and the power of evil.

I'm not sure if these are your or Tolkien's sentiments, but aren't such things as medicine, agriculture, this forum, etc, then the products of evil materialistic progress? I don't see how myth figured into those advancements in any significant sense. I guess, 'we shall know them by their fruits', probably doesn't apply to concepts. Or I may well be misinterpreting 'materialistic progress'.

I agree that myths can communicate some truths, but I find those type of truths can be delivered just as well by literature. And to your point, what then is the 'truth' of the many flood myths, how would you phrase it? That there was actually a large event of some sort that some of the flood myths may be referring to? That to me is not the 'truth' of the Noah myth at all, I would say that has more to do with the truth of the relationship between man and God. I think your post in a way, at least the way I read it, works against the 'truth' of myths; you are demonstrating whatever veracity these flood myths have by appealing to non-mythological scientific findings. Left with just a myth to work with, there isn't really any good way to know which specifics are true and which are not; if the part about Noah gathering all the animals and the world entirely flooding doesn't have to be literally true in order to convey the 'truth' of the myth, then what is really gained by finding out that the flood part may have some basis in reality? Not that it's not an interesting factoid, but obviously finding out that there was a flood of some sort doesn't lend any credence to the Ark story; floods and tsunamis are just not that uncommon of an occurrence and would likely be even more catastrophic to civilizations at that time, and as you admitted, even if the comet theory is true it doesn't explain well the American flood myths.

Thanks for the mention of the Burckle crater, I'd never heard of it. Just a note fwiw, they apparently have not dated the crater yet using radiometry, and the only dating that has been done that places it where you mention seems to be the subject of a lot of controversy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myths are a logical result of man (or woman) trying to explain events that they cannot explain. Bronze age man had no knowledge of meteors, let alone the concept of the immense power unleashed when a sizable enough rock makes it into the inner atmosphere. I think its perfectly plausible that the flood mythos of various cultures originated from a key event such as a meteorite impact, just as plausibly as the ten plagues of Egypt could all be traced back to a volcanic eruption in the Aegean Sea.

As far a dinosaurs and the Ark go, keep dreaming. Besides the fact that carbon dating separates dinosaurs from mankind by 63 million years, even without dinosaurs, no ark could be constructed using the materials of the time that could hold two of every species alive on the planet, let alone one of the dimensions given in the Bible holding all those mating pairs. Myths, including religious doctrine should not be taken as absolute truth, but as allegory constructed by primitive cultures to explain real events beyond their everyday comprehension. It is left to us to separate fact from fiction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible wasn't written by christians, especially the parts referring to this particular thread.

And you think that wasn't truth to them? When they tell the story, that is the exact truth they are speaking to their children, they are telling it the way the see it through their eyes, not yours. You can call those tribesmen ignorant all you want but just because you can explain the facts doesn't make their story any less true.

What is accepted as history as you call it is simply an interpretation of events according to the information available, so it cannot really be called historical, all it can claim is that it is the historians understanding of the events, it is no more likely than any other.

For example, why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? The common "historical" interpretation is because they wanted to destroy the fleet based there so that they could invade the pacific unoposed. True, but what people don't really know is that the USA actually started that war.

http://whatreallyhap...6315/pearl.html

So, the victors do write the history books. But it doesn't mean they are "historical".

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.”

― Winston Churchill

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

“Half of writing history is hiding the truth”

― Joss Whedon

Now getting back to the issue at hand, the events in the bible are indeed historical, they are history as seen from the viewpoint of the people who wrote them. Are they factual? Well now that is altogether another question.

But it is a question that cannot be answered because of one thing, evidence. But wait, we do have evidence.... there was indeed a great flood that did indeed drown the land.

Now according to the bible the Flood was caused by rain and by the fountains of the deep being broken open. In other words something other than just rain caused the flood. The mention of the fountains of the deep being broken open indicates a cataclysm of some kind that tore the waters from their correct place.

The majority of the myths describe a torrential, long duration rainstorm, in many cases accompanied by a huge tsunami. The water is often described as hot, sometimes coming as hot ocean swells, sometimes as burning rain. The described durations of the flood storm in the various myths, when plotted, form a bell-shaped curve with the great majority clustering between four and ten days. Tsunamis are described as extending between 15 and 100 km inland. Survivors typically find refuge in places between 150 and 300 meters above sea level.

Supernatural creatures are associated with the flood storm in nearly half the cases studied. Typical are giant snakes or water serpents, giant birds, giant horned snakes, a fallen angel, a star with fiery tail, a tongue of fire, and similar elongated things in or from the sky. Looking in detail at descriptions in the mythology, particularly those of the Indian subcontinent, we see a close resemblance to the naked-eye appearance of a near-earth post-perihelion comet.

Sixteen of the myths examined describe when the flood storm occurred in terms of seasonal indicators. Fourteen myths are from Northern Hemisphere groups, and place the event in the spring. The one from the Southern Hemisphere places it in the fall, that is, spring north of the equator. Seven stories give the time in terms of lunar phase, six at the time of the full Moon, another two days later. Stories from Africa and South America say it happened at the time of a lunar eclipse, which can only occur when the Moon is full. A 4th century BC Babylonian account specifies a full Moon in late April or early May.

Chinese sources recount how the cosmic monster Gong Gong knocked over a pillar of heaven and caused flooding toward the end of the reign of Empress Nu Wa, around 2810 BC. The 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho says there was an "immense disaster" (but doesn't say what kind) during the reign of the pharaoh Semerkhet, around 2800 BC. The tomb of Semerkhet's successor, Qa'a, was built of poorly dried mud bricks and timbers showing unusual decay; the following pharaohs of the second dynasty relocated the royal cemetery to higher ground. Analysis of astrological references in multiple myths from the Middle East, India and China, describing planetary conjunctions associated with the flood storm, whose actual times of occurrence can be reconstructed using contemporary astronomy software, leads one to conclude that the event happened on or about May 10, 2807 BC.

What was it that happened?

Well it seems the myths provide clues to that, too. For one thing, they report massive rain, falling for days at a time. This turns out to be exactly what can be expected if a large comet plunged into the deep ocean, it would loft nearly ten times its mass of water into the upper atmosphere, where it would spread widely and then fall, taking days to empty the skies. A large impact in the ocean would also cause gigantic tsunamis, as many of the myths report. In India, for example, Tamil myths tell of the sea rushing 100 km inland, a hundred meters deep.

Plotting the distribution of great flood myths together with specific reported phenomena like directions from which great winds blew or tsunamis came, we find that the most efficient way to account for them is by positing a very large comet impact in the central or southern Indian Ocean. This might not account very well for flood myths in the Americas, but flooding there could have resulted from partial disintegration of the incoming comet, with two or more pieces falling on different parts of the earth over a period of hours or days. Some of the myths speak of multiple events happening in close succession. But the really big impact, the most lethal of the bunch, occurred somewhere south of Madagascar.

And this particular impact crater has in fact been found. It is 30 km wide. It is 3800 meters below the surface of the ocean, and gues what it happened between 2800 B.C. and 3000 B.C. It would have caused a 2,000,000 megaton explosion and caused a number of succesive mega tsunamis that would have been over 200 meters in height. It is called the Burckle crater and It is in the Mid Indian Ocean.

splashid.jpg

It all sounds very reasonable jorel. I think Mabey I misunderstood you. My reference to the the oral traditions on certain islands was actually a credit to the the way things are passed down from tribesmen which I respect greatly., my only concern is that literalists take every word as truth, which you have to agree happens. I'm certain the flood of the bible was an actual event, jus not the literal mythology built up around it. My ancestors ( native Americans) have their own flood myths probably associated with glacial dams breaking in north America.

I have looked into it a little bit. The most plausible origin of the biblical flood myth, probably comes from a land bridge breaking connecting the an ancient Persian gulf with the caspian sea. There is archeological evidence to support this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible wasn't written by christians, especially the parts referring to this particular thread.

And you think that wasn't truth to them? When they tell the story, that is the exact truth they are speaking to their children, they are telling it the way the see it through their eyes, not yours. You can call those tribesmen ignorant all you want but just because you can explain the facts doesn't make their story any less true.

What is accepted as history as you call it is simply an interpretation of events according to the information available, so it cannot really be called historical, all it can claim is that it is the historians understanding of the events, it is no more likely than any other.

For example, why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? The common "historical" interpretation is because they wanted to destroy the fleet based there so that they could invade the pacific unoposed. True, but what people don't really know is that the USA actually started that war.

http://whatreallyhap...6315/pearl.html

Ive cut a lot out to shorten the post.

I dont disagree witha lot of what you write but the concept of Roosevelt sacrificing the pacific fleet is just a conspiracy theory absed on the wisdom of hindsight (Using the same rationale, the british should have known that the Hood and Prince of Wales were completely vulnerable to torpedo bombers without air support.

It did not happen and it isn't history.

There is one good reason to know this. No one knew for sure when the japanese would attack. It was just good luck that the aircraft carriers were not at pearl harbour. If they had been, it is likely that america would have lost the war right then and there.

Without carrier support and the psychological and naval superiority conferred by their suvival and strategic significance /mobility and strike power, the japanese could have overwhelmed the american navy (as they came close to doing) and gained control of the seas right up to the american west coast. In the years after pearl harbour, america's industrial machine was able to build carriers at a rate far greater than japan (something like 10 to one) and also construct an unbeatable war machine, but if it had lost its carriers at pearl, then very arguably it would never have had the time or the opportunity to do this. Roosevelt and any other military strategist would never have risked that outcome, just to bring america into the war, when other options were available to do so, with far less potential risk.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The bible wasn't written by christians, especially the parts referring to this particular thread.

And you think that wasn't truth to them? When they tell the story, that is the exact truth they are speaking to their children, they are telling it the way the see it through their eyes, not yours. You can call those tribesmen ignorant all you want but just because you can explain the facts doesn't make their story any less true.

What is accepted as history as you call it is simply an interpretation of events according to the information available, so it cannot really be called historical, all it can claim is that it is the historians understanding of the events, it is no more likely than any other.

For example, why did Japan attack Pearl Harbour? The common "historical" interpretation is because they wanted to destroy the fleet based there so that they could invade the pacific unoposed. True, but what people don't really know is that the USA actually started that war.

http://whatreallyhap...6315/pearl.html

Ive cut a lot out to shorten the post.

I dont disagree witha lot of what you write but the concept of Roosevelt sacrificing the pacific fleet is just a conspiracy theory absed on the wisdom of hindsight (Using the same rationale, the british should have known that the Hood and Prince of Wales were completely vulnerable to torpedo bombers without air support.

It did not happen and it isn't history.

There is one good reason to know this. No one knew for sure when the japanese would attack. It was just good luck that the aircraft carriers were not at pearl harbour. If they had been, it is likely that america would have lost the war right then and there.

Without carrier support and the psychological and naval superiority conferred by their suvival and strategic significance /mobility and strike power, the japanese could have overwhelmed the american navy (as they came close to doing) and gained control of the seas right up to the american west coast. In the years after pearl harbour, america's industrial machine was able to build carriers at a rate far greater than japan (something like 10 to one) and also construct an unbeatable war machine, but if it had lost its carriers at pearl, then very arguably it would never have had the time or the opportunity to do this. Roosevelt and any other military strategist would never have risked that outcome, just to bring america into the war, when other options were available to do so, with far less potential risk.

America had only 8 carriers at the start of ww2 but by the end of it had built 141 (of all types) At the start of the war Japan had the biggest most capable and combat ready fleet air arm in the world and approx the same number of carriers as the US (8 with more in production) However Japan was only able to build an additional 17 carriers during the war years. Now if japan had knocked out nearly half the american carriers in one blow at pearl harbour (Saratoga, Enterprise and Lexington) then the war could have gone very differently

Ps sorry about the double post. I left the post open while editing, to get my wife some tea, and when I came back the time in which i could add to it had expired, so i reposted.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if these are your or Tolkien's sentiments, but aren't such things as medicine, agriculture, this forum, etc, then the products of evil materialistic progress? I don't see how myth figured into those advancements in any significant sense. I guess, 'we shall know them by their fruits', probably doesn't apply to concepts. Or I may well be misinterpreting 'materialistic progress'.

Hi Liquid Gardens,

They are Tolkiens and my sentiments. And why would you consider there to be an antogonistic structure between myth and materialistic progress? That is in my view a false dichotomy. We are progressing technologically, but truly I don't think that that progress is evil. It is a tool and tools can be used for good and for evil. Myth brought desire and purpose for mankind to achieve those advancements it new existed in the domain of the gods, medicine has come about because we don't want to die, agriculture because we want to feed ourselves using the most productive means of doing so, every single human advance has a philosophical purpose behind it and those philosophical desires spur human achievement until we at last feel that we are where we want to be, but what is that place, what is that ultimate achievement?

It is to regain something that humanity inherently feels it deserves and has somehow lost, humanity has a sense of entitlement to something greater, perhaps to dominate and control, to not feel helpless in the face of fate or the gods, pehaps to be gods themselves... It all comes back to the myths that inhabit our phsyche.

As Heinlein used to say, we are not rational beings, we are rather rationalising beings. We rationalize and justify our actions, not think them out rationally. Myths are inherent in this context.

I agree that myths can communicate some truths, but I find those type of truths can be delivered just as well by literature. And to your point, what then is the 'truth' of the many flood myths, how would you phrase it? That there was actually a large event of some sort that some of the flood myths may be referring to? That to me is not the 'truth' of the Noah myth at all, I would say that has more to do with the truth of the relationship between man and God.

But are you limiting those myths to certain kinds of truths, like a type of Aosops' Fables? Becaue if you are, that in my opinion is artificially limiting truth to only a certain and narrow path. That is why you readily accept that literature is an adequate substitute. You are essentially leaving out the very truths that are most important, the truth that Myths have an element of fact albeit distorted. I again call upon Tolkiens analysis, in that there are myths that are True, and the biblical "myths" are amongst them.

Contrary to some apologists, I do not accept a dogmatic version of that truth in that they are specifically and literally ALL true down to the last detail, some of them certainly are, others are metaphorical in nature. I have for many yesrs tried to establish those links and have come to a sort of understanding in this respect. I believe the nature of the flood account as seen in the bible has elements of both types of truth.

I think your post in a way, at least the way I read it, works against the 'truth' of myths; you are demonstrating whatever veracity these flood myths have by appealing to non-mythological scientific findings. Left with just a myth to work with, there isn't really any good way to know which specifics are true and which are not; if the part about Noah gathering all the animals and the world entirely flooding doesn't have to be literally true in order to convey the 'truth' of the myth, then what is really gained by finding out that the flood part may have some basis in reality?

I do not agree with you that a scientific perspective works against the myth itself, what it does is demonstrate that the myth itself is based on a truth that is central to the whole account and that is that mankind through its own nature brought these events on itself. The flood account is one of judgement against our species and what it was doing. God even in judging our species also had mercy in choosing the best of that species for survival.

The backdrop of the story is essential to understanding why such a drastic step had to be taken by God, for the future prosperity of mankind itself. mankind was by and large becoming a hybridized species due to the comingling of humanity with another species, called the "sons of God". In essence God preserved the human gene pool. We find this theme referenced in many ancient texts and not only from Ancient Near East sources, but also South American and even Indian Vedic texts.

The biblical text says for example that Noah was to take seven pairs of all clean animals, and a pair of the animals that are not clean and seven pairs of the birds of the air, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth.

But in the time of Noah, there weren't any clean or unclean animals, that is an essentially Mosaic teaching and commandment. Therefore good old Moses in writing this all down added some stuff that wasn't there in the original account. It is not that he was lying, he was also trying to convey a spiritual truth or metaphor with this addition. it highlighted something to the readers of the time, that only clean animals are to be used for sacrifice and food. (ie, more of them would be needed than of the others).

These are the distinctions one has to make between the real and literal and the metaphor, both being equal truths in the eyes of the ancient peoples of which we are talking about. To Noah, was not the world covered in water? Yes it was. Was it actually all covered in water? no. His truth is not diminished by a fact, it just demonstrates that according to Noah, that is exactly what he saw and believed.

Not that it's not an interesting factoid, but obviously finding out that there was a flood of some sort doesn't lend any credence to the Ark story; floods and tsunamis are just not that uncommon of an occurrence and would likely be even more catastrophic to civilizations at that time, and as you admitted, even if the comet theory is true it doesn't explain well the American flood myths.

Actually it does, the original source of this data comes from a study by two scientists, Peter T. Bobrowsky and Hans Rickman in a book called Comet/asteroid impacts and human society: an interdisciplinary approach By Peter T. Bobrowsky, Hans Rickman

Online copy available here: http://thelightofdayradioshow.com/PlanetX_Files/Comet-Asteroid-Impacts-and-Human-Society.pdf

What it states is that the burckle comet, disrupted and fragmented and that a number of smaller pieces landed in the Pacific ocean causing a similar event that caught Australia, Asia and the Americas.

What does not fit the model of a single large Indian Ocean impact is the presence of a number of mega-tsunami myths from Brazil, the western coast of North America, the Arctic Ocean and in other locations outside the Indian Ocean basin. Likewise, the presence of hot or fiery water falling from the sky in several North and South American myths cannot have been caused by atmospheric re-entry ejecta from the Burckle Crater event. Myths from north-western North American describe the flood storm as coming from the north. And as noted in Sect. 2.4.1, Burckle Crater by itself cannot explain the large volume of rainfall indicated by worldwide mythology.

If we look at all of the areas with deluge legends, we find that the bulk of the data can be explained by three large impact events. The first is in the region near Burckle crater. The second is in the eastern equatorial Pacific and the third is in the far northwest Pacific. Note that each of these impact events must have had a minimum energy equivalent to the energy required to form a 51 km crater.

Not only was the Flood Comet likely composed of several fragments (Abbott et al. 2005), one may have considerably lagged behind the others. There are several stories from New Guinea and Australia about a flame or bright light witnessed oddly enough during the middle of the flood storm. One such Aboriginal Dreamtime story from Australia is as follows (Smith 1930):

An old goanna [lizard] stuck his head out [from the protective cave], but quickly withdrew it … “I have seen a wonderful sight, an awful monster with an eye as big and bright as the Moon. But wait a moment, his eye is brighter than the Moon, and nearly as bright as the Sun” … They all gathered together to discuss what they had seen, and each had a different account to give their new Intelligence that had arrived with the rain, the thunder, and the lightning. There was one thing, however, regarding which they were all agreed, and that was the brightness that shone from this formless being. Strange to say, whenever rays of light appeared to the vision of the watcher they were stamped upon his memory and also upon his body, and were plainly visible to those round about.

Also of interest along with these particular myths are descriptions of a second tsunami along the coast of New Guinea three days after the onset of the flood storm.

The internal consistency of these sets of myths from Australia and New Guinea are suggestive of a second smaller impact two or three days after the first, therefore indicating that the comet had calved into several separate fragments, perhaps in a prior perihelion passage of the Sun. Such a situation may help to explain the imagery of giant supernatural twins or companions that is prevalent in Mesopotamian, Egyptian and even Mesoamerican myth and iconography between the period of about 3200 BC to around 2650 BC (Masse 1998).

Thanks for the mention of the Burckle crater, I'd never heard of it. Just a note fwiw, they apparently have not dated the crater yet using radiometry, and the only dating that has been done that places it where you mention seems to be the subject of a lot of controversy.

Well we'll just have to wait and see, the scientists in question dated the impact to 2807 B.C. based on their study of the consistency of the myths in question, they managed to get it down to specific day, May 10, 2807 B.C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ive cut a lot out to shorten the post.

I dont disagree witha lot of what you write but the concept of Roosevelt sacrificing the pacific fleet is just a conspiracy theory absed on the wisdom of hindsight (Using the same rationale, the british should have known that the Hood and Prince of Wales were completely vulnerable to torpedo bombers without air support.

It did not happen and it isn't history.

There is one good reason to know this. No one knew for sure when the japanese would attack. It was just good luck that the aircraft carriers were not at pearl harbour. If they had been, it is likely that america would have lost the war right then and there.

Without carrier support and the psychological and naval superiority conferred by their suvival and strategic significance /mobility and strike power, the japanese could have overwhelmed the american navy (as they came close to doing) and gained control of the seas right up to the american west coast. In the years after pearl harbour, america's industrial machine was able to build carriers at a rate far greater than japan (something like 10 to one) and also construct an unbeatable war machine, but if it had lost its carriers at pearl, then very arguably it would never have had the time or the opportunity to do this. Roosevelt and any other military strategist would never have risked that outcome, just to bring america into the war, when other options were available to do so, with far less potential risk.

Hi, Mr. Walker,

Just to clarify, I did not state that Roosevelt sacrificed the pacific fleet, I stated that he purposefully caused Japan to attack the USA by way of an oil embargo against it. That is the point.

"There might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia"

Harold Ickes

"It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of petroleum will lead promptly to the invasion of Netherland East Indies...it seems certain she would also include military action against the Philippine Islands, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war."

Admiral Richmond Turner

What this means in the context it was used for, is that History as we are fed it, does not always reflect the facts.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What one believes and what one believes is true is exactly the same thing, another item one should consider, myth is not synonymous with fiction. And as you say, they deal with extraordinary events, which some people label supernatural which means outside of the normal natural world, which again does not mean they are untrue.

As for the 2nd bolded phrase... much like history is also only one perception or approach since no one can claim it to be factual.

As you may have read in the post you quoted, the POVS of quite a number of ancient civilizations give us exactly what the bible also claims... go figure.

Belief in and of itself doesn't determine the truth value of things Jo rel. I say this with the greatest of respect to your position it is clear to me the bible is your truth. Yet, I am not addressing that specifically, your spiritual path is your call, obviously, it works for you. I am simply sharing that Myth is not about truth or reality but beliefs. It offers a way/avenue to explore the things people believe on faith as a culture for whatever reasons.. We do not teach here in America that the Roman god Jupiter was real when we offer Mythology in Literature or that Greek gods were real/ true. We show that this is what was believed and we get a peek into what past cultures and societies believed in the way of rituals, and traditions, supernatural occurrences. I can infer that humans have done this for some time and still do. I agree and know that History includes perspective and bias I consider this in my inferences/conclusions. In fact, in education (here) this is prefaced when learning history. There is certain criteria involved when analyzing History. Now a days we have access to much more information-- so we can get a bigger picture-- more comprehensive/fairer conclusions. I agree that one should research all sides then conclude.Thank you for your thoughts.

Edited by Sherapy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belief in and of itself doesn't determine the truth value of things Jo rel. I say this with the greatest of respect to your position it is clear to me the bible is your truth. Yet, I am not addressing that specifically, your spiritual path is your call, obviously, it works for you. I was simply sharing that Myth is not about truth or reality but beliefs. It offers a way to explore the things people believe on faith as a culture for whatever reasons.. We do not teach here in America that the Roman god Jupiter was real when we offer Mythology in Literature or that Greek gods were real/ true. We teach that this is what was believed and we get a peek into what past cultures and societies believed in the way of rituals, and traditions, supernatural occurrences. I can infer that humans have done this for some time and still do. I know that History includes perspective and bias I consider this in my inferences/conclusions. In fact, in education here this is prefaced when learning history. There is certain criteria involved when analyzing History. Now a days we have access to much more information so we can get a bigger picture, more comprehensive/fairer conclusions.Thank you for your thoughts.

Belief does not determine truth Sherapy, that is a given, but myths are also not synonymous with falshood. That is the modern perspective imposing itself on the past. Myths were peoples way of passing on truth as they saw it.

As for the prefacing when learning history, I'm sorry but my knowledge of American students does not reflect that in my personal experience. That may be true on a local level and depending on the teacher, but I do not see it on a practical and national level. I have a number of friends in the USA and schools are not the same all over. maybe at certain income levels where students can go to a good school that may be true, but overall... not so much.

Now in regards to Jupiter, who is to say he is not real after all... One thing I learned in my studies of the bible, the gods are real. You don't warn people to stay away from those gods unless they are considered real and that is exactly what Yahweh does on a number of occasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.