Noah's Ark and Flood story.. fish didn't die!

[Jeanne dArc]

No, i don't know the guy Evan. I hope i will not bring you to anaphilactic shock. If you start feeling itchy, let me know, i can prepare some ointments that would ease it, or i can just stop talking if it helps

Haha, no, I'm just allergic to NephilimFree He's a creep.

The whole concept of evidence supporting my claims is very very slim, no arguing about that. However I am satisfied enough if I can prove it is possible. For instance taking your youtu.be example, i don't believe that all craters at moon are caused by Noah flood. Why should they be?

Moon itself is excellent magnet for different objects that would otherwise hit earth, and it was part of God design. I don't assume that all asteroids in Asteroid belt are originating from Noah flood. Why should they? As far as i know, definition of meteorites and comets is not equal to definition of asteroids. So you're disproving point i didn't state.

I never said that you said that the Moon's craters were caused by the flood, that just happened to be in the same video as the energy conversion thing. And a meteor is defined as any celestial body which invades the atmosphere of a planet; it becomes a meteorite if it survives to reach the surface. Meteoroids are small bodies of celestial debris, usually fragments of comets or asteroids. Asteroids are celestial bodies which orbit the sun, but which are not planets or comets: asteroids may become meteors or meteorites if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Comets may also become meteors or meteorites.

But ice on the cake, that energy conversion explanation was a bit simplified for science/anticreationist wanabees, don't you think? The entire "proof" is based on same volume of rock crust that exerts pressure on same volume of water. So One cubic kilometer of rock falling 10 km can lift one cubic kilometer of water up to 40 kms high, but not more, right?

But volumes were not the same. We are talking about full crust of the earth pressuring only some volume of water through midatlantic ridge. So 10 cubic kms of rock could propel one cubic km of water 400 kms high, which is more than enough to free it from earth gravitational pull, right? As you said, physics.

The example given in the video was simplified: it contained no friction So no, 10 cubic kilometers of rock could not propel one cubic kilometer of water 400 kilometers high: you're basing your measurements now on impossible conditions. And incidentally, no, even assuming 400kms was a reasonable and possible distance of ejection, nope: that wouldn't get you anywhere even remotely outside of Earth's field of gravitation. That's not even one-960th of the way to the Moon Here's what it looks like at an altitude of around 400km:

And frozen whales on moon, why would I believe in that? Water that was ejected into space was not oceanic water, it was subcrust water, it sustained no life, so it couldn't take corpses into space.

That was a claim made by NephilimFree: again, just happened to be in that video, I wasn't suggesting you claimed it.

I don't want to go into past history to discuss formations of different continents before Pangaea, because it serves no purpose. All that i am saying that we measure how old something is based on todays observations, assuming that we have same conditions now and in history. For instance, if we take a look into speed of tectonic plates, we consider it to be constant and then we calculate backwards to see whan movement started. But how can we sure the movement speed was constant all those hundreds of thousands of years? There are so many gaps in our knowledge of history, no real theory can be definitely proven.We can only count with probabilities, and i already established you beat me on that field.

No, you're right, we can't definitively prove that conditions have been identical and predictable all throughout history: however we have no reason to believe that they were not. Ergo, unless some evidence arises that conditions may have been different, we can safely say that they were probably the same.

But what we can prove that the human knowledge was systematically deleted, almost like on purpose.

Do you know about ancient babylonian historian Berossus, who wrote History of Babylon where he mentioned lineage of king that spanned through 432.000 years? Although he lived only 2300 years ago, his entire work was destroyed, only few quotes remained. We consider his recordings now a myth, along with many, many other records form ancient history, just because we are not ready to believe that. We witnessed destruction of library of Alexandria, and library of Baghdad, along with every single detailed knowledge about our past. You think that was coincidence. It is possible, sure, but opposite is also possible.

Yes, I'm aware of Berossus. I also don't believe everything I read A human being living for 432,000 years is absurd, not only for age, but for the fact that Homo sapiens has only existed for around 150~200 thousand years. What were these kings supposed to be, Homo erectus? Or perhaps mythological?

What is then truth? What is then evidence? As i said, i don't search for evidence, I search for possibility. For me existence of God is true reality, and upon that i can build the answer to question:" Is the current state of world that we live in possible, taking that reality into account."

And by all means, I cannot find any evidence that definitely disproves that reality.

Possibility is worthless without evidence. It's possible that Harry Potter is true, and wizards and witches live among us, unnoticed, due to concealing magic. That is a genuine possibility. There is, however, zero evidence to believe that it is true.

To you the existence of God is a reality: why? The existence of a god or gods is a possibility, but as with Harry Potter, there is simply no good evidence to suggest that the possibility is anything more than hypothetical: and Harry Potter is frankly a more plausible and well-written story. YHWH in the Bible is a better villain though, than Voldemort: Voldemort at least can be potentially pitiable, YHWH has virtually no redeeming qualities whatsoever

[029b10]

As the story goes, the earth was originally covered under a body of ice which was formed by the massless S particle

as it's expended energy begin forming the cluster of mass around it.

The account of the waters raising upon the earth upon and covering the highest mountain was representative of the

division of the waters in the first Chapter of Genesis wherein the waters where divided from the waters to form what we know as our atmosphere.

And thus when the waters had dried from the earth that God brought Noah and his sons from the Ark and said unto them.

I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Might be that God didn't kill the living creatures in the ocean because it would have killed the life on the Ark [being those creatures that live on the face of the earth].

Then again, in Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Edited July 16, 2014 by 029b10

[quiXilver]

I think there will be peace with these people when one side is wiped out.

Much like the peace achieved in America when the last native tribes were wiped out or consigned to reservations and unable to resist effectively.

Such a long history of hate... takes three generations to begin healing the hate of war... otherwise almost everyone has an uncle, dad, grandmother, sister etc that needs to be avenged.

so ******* sad...

[Jeanne dArc]

As the story goes, the earth was originally covered under a body of ice which was formed by the massless S particle

as it's expended energy begin forming the cluster of mass around it.

The account of the waters raising upon the earth upon and covering the highest mountain was representative of the

division of the waters in the first Chapter of Genesis wherein the waters where divided from the waters to form what we know as our atmosphere.

And thus when the waters had dried from the earth that God brought Noah and his sons from the Ark and said unto them.

I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Might be that God didn't kill the living creatures in the ocean because it would have killed the life on the Ark [being those creatures that live on the face of the earth].

Then again, in Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

[Amalthe]

I never said that you said that the Moon's craters were caused by the flood, that just happened to be in the same video as the energy conversion thing. And a meteor is defined as any celestial body which invades the atmosphere of a planet; it becomes a meteorite if it survives to reach the surface. Meteoroids are small bodies of celestial debris, usually fragments of comets or asteroids. Asteroids are celestial bodies which orbit the sun, but which are not planets or comets: asteroids may become meteors or meteorites if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Comets may also become meteors or meteorites.

The example given in the video was simplified: it contained no friction So no, 10 cubic kilometers of rock could not propel one cubic kilometer of water 400 kilometers high: you're basing your measurements now on impossible conditions. And incidentally, no, even assuming 400kms was a reasonable and possible distance of ejection, nope: that wouldn't get you anywhere even remotely outside of Earth's field of gravitation. That's not even one-960th of the way to the Moon

Great. Now you graciously taught me the difference between asteroids and meteorites. And you humorously explained me what is the distance from Earth to te moon. Still, none of the things what you wrote disproves what i said, it just serves purpose to show that you are indeed very knowledgeable. And I humble myself to your presence .

But again, you're disproving wrong statements, nothing you said changes the fact that from energy conversion perspective, 10 cubic kilometers of falling rock do have enough kinetic energy to raise 1 cubic kilometer of water 400 kms above earth, so Physic law disproves that video "evidence" you posted. That was my point. If we take energy of 1.000.000 cubic kilometers of crust falling for 35 km ( average width of the crust, not 10 km as stated in video, another blooper), would that give enough energy to 1 cubic kilometer of water to leave the earth gravity pull, including friction?

No, you're right, we can't definitively prove that conditions have been identical and predictable all throughout history: however we have no reason to believe that they were not. Ergo, unless some evidence arises that conditions may have been different, we can safely say that they were probably the same.

Yes. No reason to believe otherwise, although we have no evidence to prove it.Very neat.

Yes, I'm aware of Berossus. I also don't believe everything I read A human being living for 432,000 years is absurd, not only for age, but for the fact that Homo sapiens has only existed for around 150~200 thousand years. What were these kings supposed to be, Homo erectus? Or perhaps mythological?

Lineage of Babylonian kings doesn't talk about single king living for 432.000 years, it is lineage, list of succession, who ruled after who and for how long. And this period was only up to the Noah Flood, which was also described by Berossus. The assumption that homo sapiens lived in last 150-200.000 years is based on oldest archeological evidence from Omo river that we have currently found. The bones includes two partial skulls, four jaws, a legbone, around two hundred teeth and several other parts.

Maybe work of Berossus contained much more evidence, something tangible we could have checked, but we can't because it was destroyed. OK, good thing is that Posidonius of Apamea quoted a lot of Berrosus, along with Alexander Polyhistor or Juba II of Mauretania, who were used as Christian and Jewish sources. Bad thing that neither of them three has surviving documents, all of that was also destroyed. Atleast, their material on Berossus was recorded by Abydenus and Sextus Julius Africanus, but go figure, none of their work also survived. It is really so neat when written accounts and evidence dissapears without trace, all the records that we made are gone, and all upon that we build our history is set of teeth, jaw and legbone.

Possibility is worthless without evidence. It's possible that Harry Potter is true, and wizards and witches live among us, unnoticed, due to concealing magic. That is a genuine possibility. There is, however, zero evidence to believe that it is true.

To you the existence of God is a reality: why? The existence of a god or gods is a possibility, but as with Harry Potter, there is simply no good evidence to suggest that the possibility is anything more than hypothetical: and Harry Potter is frankly a more plausible and well-written story. YHWH in the Bible is a better villain though, than Voldemort: Voldemort at least can be potentially pitiable, YHWH has virtually no redeeming qualities whatsoever

Yes, every theory is worthless without evidence, and with evidence we can prove anything. I wonder what would you do, if you had possibility to study in detail alleged account written by Berrossus: That first men meet Oannes, a "mythical" being who taught mankind wisdom. Berossus describes Oannes as having the body of a fish but underneath the head of a fish, there was the figure of a man. He is described as dwelling in the Persian Gulf, and rising out of the waters in the daytime and furnishing mankind instruction in writing, the arts and the various sciences. To put things in perspective, Berossus was astrologist and historian, not a storyteller. Why would he invent so much details about Oannes, if he was writing about a myth? Simple "Yeah, I found those tablets in the burning bush" would be sufficient.

Even that creationist noob Carl Sagan cited tales of Oannes as deserving closer scrutiny as a possible instance of paleocontact due to its consistency and detail. Would you call it another Harry Potter story?

[Jeanne dArc]

Great. Now you graciously taught me the difference between asteroids and meteorites. And you humorously explained me what is the distance from Earth to te moon. Still, none of the things what you wrote disproves what i said, it just serves purpose to show that you are indeed very knowledgeable. And I humble myself to your presence .

Haha, umm... yes, it kinda does disprove what you said It demonstrated that meteorites are not of earthly origin, as you suggested: also that water from the flood under your described circumstances could not have escaped Earth's field of gravitation.

But again, you're disproving wrong statements, nothing you said changes the fact that from energy conversion perspective, 10 cubic kilometers of falling rock do have enough kinetic energy to raise 1 cubic kilometer of water 400 kms above earth, so Physic law disproves that video "evidence" you posted. That was my point. If we take energy of 1.000.000 cubic kilometers of crust falling for 35 km ( average width of the crust, not 10 km as stated in video, another blooper), would that give enough energy to 1 cubic kilometer of water to leave the earth gravity pull, including friction?

No, the video is still perfectly valid, it simply used a simplified physical model to make a point. Even assuming the volumes of rock and water were such in a realistic model to allow for the water to be ejected at a proper escape velocity, the water would still not escape the Earth's gravitational field. Surely you weren't under the impression that the atmosphere and the gravitational field were synonymous? Strictly speaking, the Earth's gravitational field has no limit or farthest extent, it merely grows weaker with distance: the Moon exists well within the Earth's gravity, for example, and as I said, it is nearly a thousand times farther away than your hypothetical ejected water would get.

(A separate question in itself: as a global ocean of water moving at speed sufficient to escape the Earth's atmosphere would easily kill every living thing on Earth, without exception And a large wooden boat wouldn't even remotely protect from such a devastating force.)

PS ~ We haven't yet addressed the problem of an alleged ocean of liquid water existing sub-crust: the heat of the mantle combined with the pressure of the crust would never allow for liquid water. As I've said, there is H₂O in and beneath the crust, a lot of it, but diffused within the rock, and certainly not liquid, or capable of being ejected (except perhaps in particulate form dispersed in molten rock and erupted in volcanic activity).

PPS ~ Let's hope we haven't forgotten that all this has really just been giving a hypothetical "benefit of the doubt" to what is otherwise an entirely absurd and unevidenced concept. There is no evidence of a global flood, nor of sub-crust water ejection, nor of rapid formation of the tectonic plates, nor of anything which this hypothesis of yours has so far claimed

Yes. No reason to believe otherwise, although we have no evidence to prove it.Very neat.

There needn't be any evidence "proving" that the conditions were always the same; that sort of methodology is highly flawed logically.

Lineage of Babylonian kings doesn't talk about single king living for 432.000 years, it is lineage, list of succession, who ruled after who and for how long.

Pardon me, yes, I misremembered I haven't read that stuff for a while.

Even so, whether one or ten individual kings, their ages are still nonetheless astronomically beyond a human lifespan, and the total number of years supposed to have been reigned between them is still far in excess of the length of time which Homo sapiens has so far had on this planet.

And this period was only up to the Noah Flood, which was also described by Berossus. The assumption that homo sapiens lived in last 150-200.000 years is based on oldest archeological evidence from Omo river that we have currently found. The bones includes two partial skulls, four jaws, a legbone, around two hundred teeth and several other parts.

The Omo finds blur the line between archaeology and paleontology: as the bones found are fossilized. Good to see you've studied that Most people don't know much about early Homo sapiens.

Maybe work of Berossus contained much more evidence, something tangible we could have checked, but we can't because it was destroyed. OK, good thing is that Posidonius of Apamea quoted a lot of Berrosus, along with Alexander Polyhistor or Juba II of Mauretania, who were used as Christian and Jewish sources. Bad thing that neither of them three has surviving documents, all of that was also destroyed. Atleast, their material on Berossus was recorded by Abydenus and Sextus Julius Africanus, but go figure, none of their work also survived. It is really so neat when written accounts and evidence dissapears without trace, all the records that we made are gone, and all upon that we build our history is set of teeth, jaw and legbone.

You say "much more evidence" as if Berossus presents any "evidence" to begin with... Berossus composed accounts based on other written accounts: ergo, by definition, he could not have produced an accurate account of early Homo sapiens from such writings, as writing itself had only existed for around 3000 years at the time Berossus lived.

Yes, every theory is worthless without evidence, and with evidence we can prove anything. I wonder what would you do, if you had possibility to study in detail alleged account written by Berrossus: That first men meet Oannes, a "mythical" being who taught mankind wisdom. Berossus describes Oannes as having the body of a fish but underneath the head of a fish, there was the figure of a man. He is described as dwelling in the Persian Gulf, and rising out of the waters in the daytime and furnishing mankind instruction in writing, the arts and the various sciences. To put things in perspective, Berossus was astrologist and historian, not a storyteller. Why would he invent so much details about Oannes, if he was writing about a myth? Simple "Yeah, I found those tablets in the burning bush" would be sufficient.

Astrologist = storyteller haha

I kid, but on a more serious note: yes, Berossus was writing a myth. He needn't have been the origin of said myth: as you said, he was a historian, ergo he was preserving an account of myths which had already existed for quite some time. I never suggested that Berossus himself was some sort of ancient novelist (although he may well have been, we don't have evidence to prove that he wasn't, now do we? haha).

And sorry, not sure what your "tablets in the burning bush" reference was about.... Elaborate please?

Even that creationist noob Carl Sagan cited tales of Oannes as deserving closer scrutiny as a possible instance of paleocontact due to its consistency and detail. Would you call it another Harry Potter story?

Do you.... even know who Carl Sagan was? He was a scientist. Very anti-creationist. Did the original Cosmos back in the 70s... how on earth did you get the idea he was a "creationist noob"?

And yes, he briefly mentioned in one of his books that the story of Oannes could hypothetically have been a memory of paleocontact: he also later stated that he wished he'd never said that, as apparently some people started to think he was some sort of ancient astronaut theorist. He stated that purely hypothetically: he never suggested that there was even a shred of reasonable evidence for it. And its "consistency and detail" are debatable; again, Harry Potter is extremely consistent, detailed, and plausible, but nevertheless it is absolute fiction.

[quiXilver]

[Doug1029]

Much like the peace achieved in America when the last native tribes were wiped out or consigned to reservations and unable to resist effectively.

You ought to check out Oklahoma. The two largest businesses in the state are the Cherokee and Choctaw tribes. The Choctaws make artillery shells for the army.... Some people never learn.

My wife is one-sixteenth Nez Perce, a descendent of Chief Joseph. That makes my kids 1/32nd Indian, exactly the same as the Chief of the Cherokees. Being Indian is a matter of how you were raised and is only superficially related to your genetics. A few reservations still exist. Most were effectively dissolved 80 years ago.

For you climate change deniers: one of my weather data sources is Black Hawk of the Sans Arc Lakota. He preserved some excellent data on the winter of 1880/81.

Doug

[Amalthe]

Haha, umm... yes, it kinda does disprove what you said It demonstrated that meteorites are not of earthly origin, as you suggested: also that water from the flood under your described circumstances could not have escaped Earth's field of gravitation.

It seems we are not on same page because I clearly stated i believe meteorites and comets are originated from Earth. Not asteroids from the Asteroid belt which have stable orbit. But i guess it suits you to put them in same bucket so you can have another round of ridiculing me.

No, the video is still perfectly valid, it simply used a simplified physical model to make a point. Even assuming the volumes of rock and water were such in a realistic model to allow for the water to be ejected at a proper escape velocity, the water would still not escape the Earth's gravitational field.

Hmm and you can prove that somehow? If a 5000 ton rock is given sufficient speed and is propelled sufficiently high upon the water jet stream, it cannot break off and become trapped in orbit around Sun?

maybe this link will help you understand what am i talking about:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html

(A separate question in itself: as a global ocean of water moving at speed sufficient to escape the Earth's atmosphere would easily kill every living thing on Earth, without exception And a large wooden boat wouldn't even remotely protect from such a devastating force.)

I am sorry, what kind of global ocean of water are you talking about? Maybe you should read this article to clarify what are we really discussing about here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html

There needn't be any evidence "proving" that the conditions were always the same; that sort of methodology is highly flawed logically.

Really? in everchanging environment that we live in you claim it is logical to assume conditions have been always the same? How about Faint Sun paradox?

This astrophysics paradox arises when we realize that our sun is nearly 40 percent brighter than it was over four billion years ago. However, if this is true, then the Earth would have received much less heat early on and, therefore, the surface of the planet should have been frozen in the past.

http://www.livescience.com/18838-faint-sun-paradox-earth.html

...

Astrologist = storyteller haha

I kid, but on a more serious note: yes, Berossus was writing a myth. He needn't have been the origin of said myth: as you said, he was a historian, ergo he was preserving an account of myths which had already existed for quite some time. I never suggested that Berossus himself was some sort of ancient novelist (although he may well have been, we don't have evidence to prove that he wasn't, now do we? haha).

So you conclude Berossus was not really serious historian, more of a mythologist? It is funny how we pick some historians and call the credible, while others living in same time are considered novelist in euphemistic way. Say, what is your "historical" opinion on emperor Caligula? Bored teenager or a madman?

"It seems that Caligula’s madness was not accepted as historical fact until the 19th century, when scholars read literary source material uncritically without the benefit of advances in archaeology and numismatics. Reading the scanty ancient literature on Caligula uncritically is a big problem. The stories depicting Caligula’s insanity were all written long after his reign and conform to the common Greco-Roman literary tradition of the “ancient tyrant“—a recurring trope (like the evil stepmother) in ancient Greek and Roman stories.

As early as 2,000 years ago, more reliable Roman historians complained about their peers distorting the lives of Caligula and other early emperors out of hatred. And over the past century, four major scholarly biographies have been written on the subject of Caligula (one each by Balsdon, Barrett, Winterling, and Ferril) with three concluding Caligula was sane but youthful and arrogant. The biography that concluded Caligula was insane—Arther Ferril’s Caligula—happens to be the least scholarly and most reliant on literary sources."

That was a quote from Listverse article, you can find all the links there. http://listverse.com/2014/07/21/10-myths-and-untold-facts-about-ancient-greece-and-rome/

Do you.... even know who Carl Sagan was? He was a scientist. Very anti-creationist. Did the original Cosmos back in the 70s... how on earth did you get the idea he was a "creationist noob"?

And yes, he briefly mentioned in one of his books that the story of Oannes could hypothetically have been a memory of paleocontact: he also later stated that he wished he'd never said that, as apparently some people started to think he was some sort of ancient astronaut theorist. He stated that purely hypothetically: he never suggested that there was even a shred of reasonable evidence for it. And its "consistency and detail" are debatable; again, Harry Potter is extremely consistent, detailed, and plausible, but nevertheless it is absolute fiction.

Yes, really, how exactly old are you? Because I expected you will see the obvious sarcasm in my line. I am not claiming Sagan claimed it as evidenced for paleocontact, i am saying that looking from logical perspective, it could be interpreted as such, beacuse it would be much easier for myth creator just to say, "God appeared from heaven and gave me this knowledge", then to invent some unbelievable details about fish people.

[Jeanne dArc]

It seems we are not on same page because I clearly stated i believe meteorites and comets are originated from Earth. Not asteroids from the Asteroid belt which have stable orbit. But i guess it suits you to put them in same bucket so you can have another round of ridiculing me.

You stated that you believe that meteorites and comets have earthly origin: I demonstrated why that is not the case, since the materials from which they are made are not earthly in origin Pretty straightforward.

Hmm and you can prove that somehow? If a 5000 ton rock is given sufficient speed and is propelled sufficiently high upon the water jet stream, it cannot break off and become trapped in orbit around Sun?

maybe this link will help you understand what am i talking about:

http://www.creations...ook/Comets.html

Nope, it can't

You do understand how gravitational fields work, right? If the hypothetical rock propelling into space by a water jet couldn't even escape the Earth's gravity (as I demonstrated it could not, several times), then it certainly can't "break off" and enter orbit around the Sun (insofar as the Earth orbits the Sun anyway). It would simply become trapped in the Earth's gravity, and orbit the Earth: which we don't see happening.

I am sorry, what kind of global ocean of water are you talking about? Maybe you should read this article to clarify what are we really discussing about here:

http://www.creations...teOverview.html

I love that you link to articles from a pseudoscientific website promoting creationism when I'm trying to talk about science The article you provided doesn't really seem to clarify what you were talking about, either. Perhaps you could actually just tell me what on earth you're talking about, yourself? haha

Really? in everchanging environment that we live in you claim it is logical to assume conditions have been always the same? How about Faint Sun paradox?

This astrophysics paradox arises when we realize that our sun is nearly 40 percent brighter than it was over four billion years ago. However, if this is true, then the Earth would have received much less heat early on and, therefore, the surface of the planet should have been frozen in the past.

http://www.livescien...adox-earth.html

It probably was frozen... but for a different reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

Have you actually read the scientific hypotheses regarding the Faint young Sun paradox? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox#Greenhouse_hypothesis

And yes, it is still logical to assume that conditions have been the same, until there is evidence that they were not. The Faint young Sun paradox is an example of a circumstance in which evidence has indicated that certain conditions may not have been the same (i.e., the output of the Sun) during certain epochs. It would be entirely illogical to assume that conditions were different, without evidence, however.

So you conclude Berossus was not really serious historian, more of a mythologist? It is funny how we pick some historians and call the credible, while others living in same time are considered novelist in euphemistic way.

Back then, people took mythology very seriously, and may not always have distinguished between myth and history. Berossus was likely as serious a historian as he could have been in those days, but he, and nearly every other historian of that time, incorporated mythology into their histories because they did not have any means by which to demarcate fact from fiction. You must remember, things like archaeology and the historical method had not yet been established, and historians were mostly interested in penning a cohesive narrative from whatever sources they could; they couldn't even conceive, for example, that there was a prehistory (read: a time before the written word, ergo, a time before events could be recorded).

Say, what is your "historical" opinion on emperor Caligula? Bored teenager or a madman?

"It seems that Caligula’s madness was not accepted as historical fact until the 19th century, when scholars read literary source material uncritically without the benefit of advances in archaeology and numismatics. Reading the scanty ancient literature on Caligula uncritically is a big problem. The stories depicting Caligula’s insanity were all written long after his reign and conform to the common Greco-Roman literary tradition of the “ancient tyrant“—a recurring trope (like the evil stepmother) in ancient Greek and Roman stories.

As early as 2,000 years ago, more reliable Roman historians complained about their peers distorting the lives of Caligula and other early emperors out of hatred. And over the past century, four major scholarly biographies have been written on the subject of Caligula (one each by Balsdon, Barrett, Winterling, and Ferril) with three concluding Caligula was sane but youthful and arrogant. The biography that concluded Caligula was insane—Arther Ferril’s Caligula—happens to be the least scholarly and most reliant on literary sources."

That was a quote from Listverse article, you can find all the links there. http://listverse.com...reece-and-rome/

Not really sure why you felt the need to go off on this tangent... it has absolutely nothing to do with what we've been discussing

Anyway though: you know, "bored teenager" and "madman" aren't mutually exclusive terms. A person can be both

As for my opinion on Caligula, it couldn't be less relevant to this conversation.

Yes, really, how exactly old are you? Because I expected you will see the obvious sarcasm in my line. I am not claiming Sagan claimed it as evidenced for paleocontact, i am saying that looking from logical perspective, it could be interpreted as such, beacuse it would be much easier for myth creator just to say, "God appeared from heaven and gave me this knowledge", then to invent some unbelievable details about fish people.

No, your sarcasm was not "obvious" Let's be fair: you've said enough crazy stuff so far in this conversation (sub-crust water, world created perfect, comets are from Earth, etc.) that I think you should at least mark your sarcasm with a winkie face or something. It's becoming difficult to tell when you're joking and when you're serious.

And sure, Oannes could be interpreted (with some stretching) as possible paleocontact: that would make it a bit odd though that the ancient Mesopotamians show a very clear upward curve in sophistication (read: their knowledge and technology develops at a rate which seems very natural; not what we would expect if some more advanced being had taught them things, certainly).