Legends say China began in a great flood. Scientists just found evidence that the flood was real.

Posted by $ nickursis 7 years, 7 months ago to Science
88 comments | Share | Flag

Interesting. Tales of floods are universal, but after listening to Magicians of the Gods, and the discussion of the Younger DRyas period and the cuase of it being aa cometary impact at 12.6 BC and another that ended it at 9.6 through global warming caused by ocean impacts and the resulting water vapor http://clouds.It shows that a lot of the tales told around the world as "myth" usually end up as having a basis in fact.
SOURCE URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/08/04/legends-say-china-began-in-a-great-flood-scientists-just-found-evidence-that-the-flood-was-real/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by bsmith51 7 years, 7 months ago
    One of the great debates in Geology is whether changes in morphology have been predominantly evolutionary or catastrophic. There is good evidence for both.
    The Columbia Gorge and Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington demonstrate catastrophism, caused by the repeated breakdown of ice dams at the end of the last ice age (or are we still in it?). The ripple marks from the flooding that ensued were so large they were only found in places with the advent of satellite photography.
    All I really know is that we must Save The Planet by finding a way to Stop Continental Drift Now!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      Go look at the Younger Dryas impact studies for the reasons for the scab lands and gorge. It is proven through a worldwide distribution of nano diamonds and carbon sphericals that can only be produced by one, as well as explaining where all the water came from and why it was only a few weeks in duration, yet did so much damage.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 7 months ago
        I agree the event occurred in the blinK of an eye,
        The old theory: it was thought that repeated breaking of icedams produced the gouging. The geological evidence shows that the water was 800 feet high flowing at 60 -70 mph. The meteor explosion is estimated to be equal to ten million megatons or 1000 times all combined arsenal's of nuclear weapons stockpiled. The comet broke apart like the Shoemaker Levi comet in 1992 that hit Jupiter in numerous spots. 2 large 3-4 kilometer pieces hit the 2 mile thick ice sheet in What is now Canada , instantly melting enormous amounts of ice. The space rocks hit the Atlantic Ocean causing huge tsunami's then Europe and finally the mid- east. Because it happened when the earth had a much lower sea level the flooding covered many coastal areas never to be seen again.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 7 months ago
    There is a flood myth in the oldest story known to humankind: the Epic of Gilgamesh
    I think this notion of a great catastrophe wiping out decadence leaving behind the righteous is an innate human predilection that should be resisted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      That is true, using some prognostication to enforce behavhior is typical control BS. The interesting part is the fact is is now an immutable fact that the Younger Dryas was caused by multiple impacts of a comet like object across the North American Ice sheet, as well as into Europe and the middle east. The nano diamonds and dust are incontrovertible proof, and have been found across a large area. The Epic seems to be a codified version of it. It also explains the Columbia gorge and scablands of Oregon and Washington, as well as the stories of the "darkness and black rain" and "fire from the sky" that is prevalent throughout most myths across many nations. The ending assault seems to have evidence to support it, as ocean impacts are the only good model to expalin an 8 degree C rise in 10 years that have been proven in the Greenland Ice samples, and they also would produce catastrophic tidal waves that would have scoured the coasts for hundreds of miles inland.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 7 months ago
        Shouldn't that have been '12600 BC and another that ended it at 9600 BC' rather than '12.6 BC and another that ended it at 9.6 BC' which would give better dates that might actually be within what was the Younger Dryas.
        When the temperature rose at the end of the last glaciation there were some periods where the temperature dipped sharply suddenly, one such period was the Younger Dryas period. Then the temperature had risen sharply with a slow long term decrease for thousands of years after that with today's temperatures being lower than several thousand years ago and probably are lower than those of the Roman warm period and the middle age warm periods and even have a hard time getting above the 1930s warm period. Most everything today about climate or environment is hype.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
          Uh, yes, you are indeed correct. I should have had a "k" in there. This is actually data driven, science based theory that does explain what happened, and also raises the whole "it's all about CO2" stuff question as to validity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 7 months ago
            CO2 is a linear molecule and thus not particularly good at absorbing and emitting radiation compared to H2O which is a polar molecule. Water vapor is several percent, say 3%, of the atmosphere while CO2 is about one molecule to 2500 molecules in the atmosphere or about 0.04% which is about 1/75 of the stronger absorbent molecule and most of the solar radiation that CO2 would have absorbed is absorbed by the H2O, much of it in breaking the hydrogen bonds of liquid water. Then there is the problem as to how the atmosphere is heated since the non-greenhouse gases (O2, N2, and Ar) do not absorb except at short wavelength and very long wavelengths, so the heating of the atmosphere must be mainly through exchange of energy between those molecules making up about 97% or so of the atmosphere from the greenhouse gases. Not much to radiate to the ground to cause extra temperature rise. The greenhouse gases main job beside heating the rest of the atmosphere is to remove heat from the atmosphere by colliding with those non-greenhouse gases gaining energy and radiating it to space at the top of the troposphere.
            There is no known acceptable reason for much of the somewhat periodic changes of the climates of the Earth. I phrase it that way because each area of the Earth has its own climate which is somewhat periodic and over long time periods can vary. It is a long stretch of the imagination to average the climates or in the usual way average the temperatures and claim that an average is an actual existing thing which is a metric for the imaginary climate of the Earth.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 7 years, 7 months ago
    There is scientific evidence collected from around the globe which shows sentiment in the layers of soil and stone consistent with a great (global) flood, all from approximately the same age. Its also rather curiously compelling that all cultures have a flood story in their legends.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
      There is evidence that the majority of land has been underwater, yes. Not that it all happened at the same time or that it was the result of a global flood.
      Great flood myths are far more likely to be over dramatizations of a local people living through localized natural events that appear to affect their entire world. It is accidental hyperbole due purely to their ignorance. They believe this event to be global as a result of their lack of actual global experience or knowledge.
      When you say "all cultures," I would challenge that purely on its universal conclusion. I'm sure I can find one example, without trying very hard, which disproves your theory. Even adapting your phrase to mean "most cultures" can be easily explained away as ignorant primitives believing the entire world was only what they could see up to the horizon, and when all of what they have ever experienced in their natural lives is flooded in a purely natural (and globally speaking a fairly mundane event), they conclude that they whole planet was subsumed and that they must have angered their particular deity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 7 years, 7 months ago
        Perhaps, but it is possible that it took variable times for the water to recede based on different depths, accounting for the differences in time (and sentiment in the geology). There is also the possibility that a meteor struck the earth, vaporizing a large amount of ocean, opening up fissures in the Earths crust, causing massive tidal waves, and causing a global down pour.
        http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science...

        As for cultures, there are always exceptions, some cultures didn't write either. But I would respect China and India over those exceptions based on their population sizes and because of the ages of their cultures.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

        The drive between Phoenix and Tucson, which I do a few times every year, looks far more like an ocean bottom that a desert. I've found seashells, small ones in large numbers, in the desert. I found fossils of shells in the forest in upstate NY.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
          A sudden global flood wouldn't cause sea life to appear in new areas. Floods are far too short-lived for animal and plant life to grow in new areas. Continental movements and gradual rising and falling sea levels account for it much better. Of course the earth has gone through many times of higher and lower sea levels due to many causes, no one disputes that. I do t get what the pint. If this discussion actually is. It seems to dance around halfway suggesting Noah's flood was real and that arguing against global warming (which I support, but fail to see how this article relates).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
            Nope, you are still missing the point. The Chinese always said their particular Flood story was a myth, (for this particular period and leader), and damn if it isn't true! Amazing. Something dismissed for centuries as fantasy, made up stories, is actually true, and there is scientific data to support it. The Noah Flood, the Gilgamesh Flood, the whole bundle of Flood myths are true. Did god tell him to build an ark? I don't know, and that is not what is being said here. Just the fact that a one time, in 10,800 BC (+/- 150 years) there was a huge flood where a huge amount of meltwater raised sea level maybe 50-100 feet, then the earth fell into another ice age, which was then ended at 9600 BC by yet anther flood, which also raised sea levels towards current levels today. So any where where todays ocean depths are less than about 300 feet, was dry land. That is an awful lot of ground.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
              There has been zero dispute in modern science that sea levels have fluctuated greatly throughout earth's history.
              The China flood seems like it may have happened (one person doing research isn't proof and even he doesn't say for sure), but the most important thing we should take from this is what people have done with these myths. They have used them and their supposed divine origin to justify horrendous atrocities against people. Much of Chinese government and the view of people's subservience to it is based on this myth and that theor ruler is the one that makes them safe and prosperous. Much of the Christian view of government seems to revolve around making their ruler happy, or he will smite us, like in Noah's flood.

              I don't see this as more than a passing curiosity. A very big flood seems to have happened in China due to an earthquake that made a temporary damn that broke. Interesting story.

              Also, true historians have always claimed that our myths and fables were likely dramatizations of natural occurrences. Few make the claim that all are 100% fiction. We should not really care as much about the actual historical event that inspired the myth (apart from using that evidence to support the lack of divine intervention) as we care about what people say we should do about such myths. That is what truly affects us on a day to day basis. If someone concludes that we must always live in fear of a vengeful deity and do our best to please Him to prevent such occurrences, then that person is a lunatic. But if we conclude that we should be on the lookout for rivers that get accidentally damned up and attempt to prevent sudden massive flooding, then that is being rational.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
                Indeed, your opinion, which I respect. However, I do not know of one mainstream scientist who will acknowledge that a worldwide flood occurred and that the source is clearly identified. Just the same as in the China story, where a myth that people believed in as a real event, was never taken seriously. The fact that religious texts carry a lot of these myths and are incorporated in them is a separate issue, in that the discussion was just to point out that myths, as such, not as religious fables, most probably have a basis in fact. One of the largest myths is the great flood. There is now scientific proof to support it. I do agree with you about the use of religion as a manipulative tool, as well as a way to influence behavior where it is slanted for a specific result. I do not begrudge anyone their religion, because that is their personal choice, that I do not have to endorse or subscribe to. I do care about facts and history, as well as the implications of such facts. What if the Younger Dryas comet is only part of a stream of material from a bigger comet that broke up? What if today we are subject to a similar sized impact? The results are much easier modeled today with the data gathered from the YD impact, as well as to ask is anyone looking to see if something is out there? Besides the Youtube gang.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 7 years, 7 months ago
            True, but sea life could appear in new areas when those areas were submerged and the sea creatures were trapped and breeding until the water was no more.

            I don't really think a point was to be made by posting the article. Its just interesting to speculate, particularly when there is geological evidence and folklore involved.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
              Just look back at some of the videos from the flooding in Georgia a year or 2 ago, where the fish were swimming up the street. But I was making one point: don't dismiss any source of information, and that does include myths, legends and folklore. There is almost always some truth and facts buried in them. This case shows that data, new discoveries and information can either validate or help interpret what was being said. They are not always just stories.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
          Indeed AJ, that is fact. However, John is being a real devils advocate inthe discussion which is a necessary part of any debate. Thanks for the point you make, as it is pertinent to the point I am trying to make: The Flood myth appears in over 300 cultures as a foundational myth (Graham Hancock) making it one of the most common myths found. There are variations and differences, different people, different vehicles (boats boxes, rafts, trees) used, but they all relate to a great flood, some survivors and recovery. The fact they are "myths" does not imbue them as "primitives". Primitives do not move 300 ton stone blocks around, and shape and cut them from living rock. There are many layers of "sea coverage" and not all relate to the Great Flood. The cliffs of Dover, England are an excellent example of how a Flood can eat away at a soft source, and erode large amounts the rock to leave such cliffs, and that is an accepted explanation for how they were created. There was a land bridge to France there and it went away in the Flood. There are organic village remains under the surface on both sides that have been dated back to 3rd and 4 millennium BC. The problem with that dating is, as Graham Hancock points out, unless you can absolutely say the source was undisturbed since the time laid down, you can get a false C14 reading from the intrusion of younger material. The point is a group of 300 cultures worldwide saying "Oh crap we are all gong to die, and there was this frigging big flood" goes beyond a small group on the coast looking at a tsunami that is loacalized. It is a big problem for everyone, and needed a big cause to induce. That has been the excuse mainstream science has denied the validity of myth as fact, no cause could be found. It also is why there is still resistance in the face of overwhelming data to support the Younger Dryas impact, because it means the myths are not only true, and have an element of truth, but they now have a date far older than anyone wants to accept. That means (just as in the story above), mainstream science has to adapt to new data, and people have to stop dismissing myths as "primitive fantasy".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
        No one said that this was an earth environmental event that was like the ancient seabeds rising up over millennia and leaving deposits, etc. This was a short term event, and when people who (logically) lived along the coasts, found their living rooms full of water, they naturally (and correctly) said "crap". There were survivors, and they then had to find a way to tell the story beyond "We got a lot of rain yesterday". They put it into their own framework, which includes a lot of cultures of blaming god for whatever goes wrong, and also had to explain why it happened. Since they did not know a big friggin comet chunk smacked the earth 1000 miles north, they relate it with what they can see and say: Loud booms, fire and brimstone, ash, black mud rain, great heat, and floods. These are the fundamental elements in a lot of Flood myths.You do not have to go far, go look up studies on witnesses and their reliability, you will find if you take 10 people, and show them the same thing, and keep them separate, then ask them to describe what they saw and heard, you will get 10 different variations on the same basic story. That is why witness testimony is inherently unreliable evidence for conviction.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
    We are finding a lot of these events line up with frightening tales and miracles in our biblical history.
    However, the new thinking as to what caused the sudden melting of ice sheet creating a world wide flood was probably extreme cosmic radiation causing atmospheric rivers to pour down for days. It's likely our shields were low, maybe even worse than today. The other theory is the intrusion of Venus into our system, causing an electromagnetic discharge between the plants. Test were done demonstrating the effects...it matches the Egyptian pictographs of a ball with a red glow looking like the devil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      Carl, go look up Younger Dryas impact event. The data is impeccable for a large impact event 10,800 BC, with a repeat at 9600 BC. Caused the floods and the ice aged seen in between.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
        I am aware of this Nick...just pointing out other important thoughts on the subject.
        I find it interesting that there are several different dates associated with these know events.
        My thoughts are that our time line and ways of determining them are off a bit, to say the least.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
          Oh, ok, sorry. I do find the logic compelling that fits several disparate facts, so it is something of great interest. The dating thing seems to handicap a lot of science and history, seems a lot of archeologists got issued crystal balls with their degrees.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
            Laughing...the one thing no one seems to take notice of is Carbon 14 dating. Back some years now it was discovered that radio active decay has sped up...pointing to the supposition that maybe it's not a constant and never has been.

            I also have thought that counting sedimentary layers is not accurate either...think about it, all sedimentary like events are not always world wide, some if not most are regional. Make sense?

            Not to mention that calendars have changed often, days and months in a year have changed between civilizations to further confound things.
            I still hold that perhaps the Mayan Calendars are among the most accurate.
            Also...there was some article recently I read where scientist admit that the earths rotation was faster a few billion years ago and began slowing ever since...makes perfect sense to me. And another anomaly was noticed...Venus's rotation has sped Up!...go figure...maybe we weren't supposed to keep track of time passage...seems we suck at it.
            Still laughing...I enjoy exploring all the different theories but do you think we'll Ever figure it out?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
              Nothing can bee 100% fact without direct observation, so no, we will never know the exact truth. But we can make some pretty good premises based on data...zThe future may make something better, there is even a system now that measures the amount of light stored in stone to date, Graham did not seem to give many coherent samples and did acknowledge it is in it's infancy, even when they support his hypothesis.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
                That's interesting...what about cloudy days or stone that's buried. I am with you, we'll come up with something that's more dependable.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
                  Actually it is intended for rock that has been buried from sunlight, before re-exposed. re-exposure resets the clock apparently. It has been used in some of the Egyptian relics and reported dates 1-2 thousand years older than everyone is comfortable with.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
                    Which would be more accurate...the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids...they were there when they settled there...The guy that wrote "Forgotten Civilization" found that the P's and the Sphinx showed water erosion...like they'd been under water, exposed to rain and weathering.
                    My guess is they were built by the Nephilim or their descendants...way before the Egyptians came to be.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
                      Read Fingerprints of thee Gods, and Magicians of the Gods and it will provide the chain of data and logic. It is pretty comprehensive and Graham Hancock is pretty good at not letting his theory bend the facts. He admits when there are disparities and he also will quote the ones that correlate. Dobrien introduced me to him, and he has been working on it for 30 years or so. But he talks about the scablands and the guy who first called for a catastrophic flood , who was ridiculed for the idea until he had a truckload of naysayers go out there, and they telegraphed him "we are all catastrophists" yet he was still fought. Mainly because he could not provide the source, as no one had discovered the proof of an impact in 10,800 BC. He also has some very interesting interpretations of many megalithic sites around the world. All he is saying is it seems clear there was an advanced civilization around at 10-12000 BC, yet they apparently had a totally different basis of advanced tech, as they could not detect or deflect the impacter. But he does theorize that the eastern Pacific would have been exposed back then when the ocean was 300 feet lower, which also explains the site off Okinawa, that science poos on because it is underwater. Well, back then, it wasn't.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
                        I've heard many references to this work and I believe it's on my wish list at amazon. Thanks

                        PS...interesting to note, this is what the ancients referred to as living among the Gods on earth...but that changed with our excruciatingly slow journey into conscious thought. Many get hung up on this because the language and expressions never changed.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
                          Yes, the Egyptians refer to the God of Knowledge as Thoth, and the character is traceable to several religions. Religion is often used to both control and express specific dogma through oral tradition. Graham makes the point what better way to pass on specific knowledge than that? He also proposes the ancients came to various countries post catastrophe to bring their knowledge to all man. They then were viewed as gods. That same thing has happened today. So most religion may actually be based on that.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 7 months ago
    I found Bob Ballard's Black Sea research about the supposedly mythical great flood fascinating:
    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bla...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      Doc, go look up Younger Dryas and look at the science behind it. It is unassailable in showing that a comet impact event occured around 10,800 BC, and the evidence is mounting for sea impacts at about 9600 BC to be the cause for the sudden warming. Such an event dovetails perfectly with the change in sea level of 300 feet about then, the submergence of all the low lying land, as well as the mysterious megalith momentum found off Okinawa, which would have been seaside property then. I would think you could appreciate the unassailable logic the data presents. The bigger picture is what caused it may well be lurking and is an ongoing threat every 1200 years or so.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
      Cosmic Xray events, atmospheric compression events coming at a time when the magnetic shield is weak makes a deluge of atmospheric river events on a world wide basis more than possible...it's really not far fetched.
      Didn't archeologist's find sea creatures in particular layers of land sediment, stone, etc., like in Utah and area's like that?

      The biblical story is probably accurate...except for pagan non-conscious bicameral man's account of why it happened...you see, just like modern day liberals...they always think some entity is pissed off at mankind...not even considering that it is a natural event.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
    Why are we discussing biblical-ish mythology? Strange topic choice. I think WND Faith would have been a more apropos forum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Bethesda-gal 7 years, 7 months ago
      Maybe because most, if not all people in this forum have sufficiently robust intellectual curiousity to be fascinated by scientific proof being found that confirms ancient myths and religious stories.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
        Well I do get the sentiment, and it is a good point, I wouldn't call this type of information "confirming" religious myths. It would be entirely accurate to state that this information can indicate that these religious stories are not 100% pure fantasy, like Lord of the Rings, but that is a far cry from actual confirmation. There is far more to the fantastical and physically impossible Noah's Ark story than simply "large portions of what is currently land were at water under one point."
        Also, many cultures having a similar mythology is not, as some have suggested, evidence of the validity of such mythologies. It could simply be from cross-cultural communication, or perhaps anthropological evidence of a common human ancestry with persistent traits to their folklore.
        In the end, the fact still remains that there is no evidence to suggest that our entire planet was one submerged entirely under rainwater, and that it is entirely impossible to fit to every single species in the world onto a single floating vessel... Or at least any yet constructed by man.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
          John, the point is that myths are developed as a way of passing data down long periods where written forms are suspect to destruction, such as the Library of Alexandria. Th have a huge number of myths with the same basic format, dismissed as "religious hogwash" and there for, ignored, limits our understanding of history and our world. I am pointing out that something previously considered a "story", does indeed have a basis in fact. That does not mean every myth has a "it really happened this way" approach, it means there is probably a kernal of truth to it behind the story. The flood myth so prevalent, seems to have a basis of fact in the Younger Dryas event, which also was a huge flood and mini ice age, and is clearly described in a lot of myths. Yet there are still mainstream academics who fight this tooth an nail, because it will completely rewrite history,
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
            This article says that an earthquake cause one river to have a flood that covered an area up to 2000 miles long. It says nothing about a single event that covered the globe. If anything, it's only further supports the idea that the biblical story is a giant load of hogwash. This kind of revelation does not "rewrite history" apart from the (relatively) very small portion of the earth in which it occurred. The fact that the biblical "great flood" can be easily explained by such a natural phenomenon only further indicates that the Ark story is a lie. This wasn't God's retribution upon a wicked planet that wiped out all humans and most animals except for a few good people... It sounds more likely to be a short-lived, isolated, natural event that certainly caused some sort of destruction and was given supernatural significance and global scoped due purely to the ignorance of those involved.
            Basically it can only further prove that religious texts and mythology are collections of ignorant falsehoods, not that small pieces of truth and semi-divine revelations can be found in them. To believe the latter would be to praise the flat-earthers as enlightened for acknowledging that there is an earth at all.

            The point we should all be taking from this, in my opinion, is that religion is a product of ignorance. Just as Rand suggested... Religion is merely a primitive form of philosophy.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
              No one mentioned religion. A lot of Flood myths have no connection to religion per se. If you have not read the scientific data for the Younger Dryas impact, you should. In addition, you keep twisitng and turning this discussion into someanti religion rant. The point was just to show how myths can be as good a source of dtaa (i.e. there was once a big ass flood) and fact (by golly here is the proof). It dovetails into the greater story of the global flood in the same way, with the data from the Younger Dryas impact and the consequent flood, and sea level rise. No one has tried to sell you on a story about a little noah dude in a boat full of animal dung. The only point was that the overall flood myths have a basis in fact and reflect a real event. No one mentioned God, retribution or any other causality. If you are not willing to read the data, and consider the hypothesis and make a reasoned, rational discussive response, then don't.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Bethesda-gal 7 years, 7 months ago
          I was responding to your comment which asked why such a topic was being raised in this forum. As to geology, anthropology or archeology being absolute confirmation of the past, since I am not trained in any of those disciplines, I can only suggest that all those sciences are based on a series of data points that become increasingly confirming, or disproving, depending on the discovery, over time.
          As to the whole world being covered in water, 'whole world' is relatively limited given modes of transportation in ancient times.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
            As I've said before, that is only further proof that religious myths, and especially those that wrote them, are lies based upon small truths. The biggest lies are the conclusions drawn from them about their causes and the way we should change our thinking and actions as a result.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
              I do not see where anyone in this whole thread has tried to make conclusions or define the causes beyond what is scientific fact. Provable causaulity defined by evidence and scientific examination. No preaching, no pontificating.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
        Well I do get the sentiment, and it is a good point, I wouldn't call this type of information "confirming" religious myths. It would be entirely accurate to state that this information can indicate that these religious stories are not 100% pure fantasy, like Lord of the Rings, but that is a far cry from actual confirmation. There is far more to the fantastical and physically impossible Noah's Ark story than simply "large portions of what is currently land were at water under one point."
        Also, many cultures having a similar mythology is not, as some have suggested, evidence of the validity of such mythologies. It could simply be from cross-cultural communication, or perhaps anthropological evidence of a common human ancestry with persistent traits to their folklore.
        In the end, the fact still remains that there is no evidence to suggest that our entire planet was one submerged entirely under rainwater, and that it is entirely impossible to fit to every single species in the world onto a single floating vessel... Or at least any yet constructed by man.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
        Well I do get the sentiment, and it is a good point, I wouldn't call this type of information "confirming" religious myths. It would be entirely accurate to state that this information can indicate that these religious stories are not 100% pure fantasy, like Lord of the Rings, but that is a far cry from actual confirmation. There is far more to the fantastical and physically impossible Noah's Ark story than simply "large portions of what is currently land were at water under one point."
        Also, many cultures having a similar mythology is not, as some have suggested, evidence of the validity of such mythologies. It could simply be from cross-cultural communication, or perhaps anthropological evidence of a common human ancestry with persistent traits to their folklore.
        In the end, the fact still remains that there is no evidence to suggest that our entire planet was one submerged entirely under rainwater, and that it is entirely impossible to fit to every single species in the world onto a single floating vessel... Or at least any yet constructed by man.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      John, it is factual data, which we all appreciate here, beyond just this point. The point I am making with this is that we, as open minded, objective thinkers, should question everything, examine the data, look at the facts and not buy into whatever the pontificates tell us. Much as the government blows BS up the sheeple butts, we should be the objective, factual naysayers if that is what truth tells us. Please go look at the data supporting the Younger Dryas comet impact, and the associated results on civilization, and how the myths all reflect what was, indeed, real events. I am not offering myths as proof, simply that myths have a basis in fact and should not be dismissed as muddle headed thinking, but of a way to pass data down long term dark periods.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 7 months ago
        Thats the problem Nickursis separating the basis of fact from the myth. The preconceived dismissal of old historical tales as ridiculous or fiction often misses good historical descriptions.Thanks for this post.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 7 months ago
    I dont think its really important what happened thousands of years ago, or even hundreds of years ago in terms of floods and earthquakes and tsunamis- except to learn where they might happen again.

    More important to cultures is what the people in them are thinking right now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      Term, and what happens if whatever cause those floods is something that can re-occur, and because academics are too busy fighting to keep turf, and the governments do not want "panic", no one is doing anything to detect and prevent the next event? Remember, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 7 months ago
    In digging into the physics of global warming, I found that NO models predict the warming we have without the effect of water vapor. Water is the biggest contributor to the behavior, and no one is coming clean with this information.

    I can't believe how hard it was to find this. I also can't believe in digging this out, that there (I can't find it now) is simple undergraduate calculations for the steady-state temperature based on the atmosphere constituents. It under predicts the temperature a bit, and second-order effects are responsible for differences. This simple model tells you right away that CO2 is not the fundamental, first-order cause.

    Any one else know where to put their hands on this calculations? I think I found it in a round about way on the University of Arizona's site. Not surprised it is obscured now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
      See: suspicious0bservers.org and the work they have done there. Think, Grand Maunder Minimum, a 400 year cycle and the shame of being lead into thinking the opposite is happening; the lack of preparation and increased food prices to come.
      Also see Davids work at adapt2030 on youtube.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
        We have had a couple posts about that when they first announced that it was actually getting colder, and we had some discussion and debate as to whether the data was accurate or not. It doesn't take an impact to make it cold, it can also just be a little less warm. There was also some discussion as to the paucity of sunspots being an indicator as well.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 7 months ago
          The sun cycles and sunspot theory has recently been statistically proven by, believe it or not, actuaries, which by nature, are not political and only biased by math. They even found a few more cycles we were not aware of.
          Western civilizations problem has been the ignoring of natural cycles.

          By ignoring the cycles, the progressives and other non-conscious entities can now blame You. Just like our non-conscious biblical ancestors blamed some entity for the punishment, (see the connection?)...either way, Conscious Mankind gets the short end of the stick.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      I am not deeply versed in math at that level, or physics, but the Younger Dryas model relies on the second impact at 9600 BC to generate huge amounts of water vapor, causing an insulatory effect raising temperatures 8 degrees C in 10 years, melting all the ice sheets and raising sea level 300 feet. This is what submerges the land bridges between Alaska and Russia, England and France, as well as the whole subcontinent of Suna creating the gazillion islands in Indonesia.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 7 months ago
    Years ago the History Channel or somewhere I watched a whole hour devoted to how an evaporated Mediterranean Sea became reformed by a Gibraltar area breech flooding courtesy of the Atlantic Ocean.
    To be shown here, I just found a preferable silent short animation that displays how both the Mediterranean and the Black Sea were formed by breech flooding.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xQeE...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      Indeed a viable theory, it needs to be correlated with the Younger Dryas data, and then maybe can be modeled sufficiently well to present a factual, plausible model. It would fit in with David Ballard's Black Sea research as well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 7 months ago
    I agree , over and over stories around the world are passed down from past generations usually dismissed as myth. With enough evidence the experts begrudgingly admit that the tales are a rich source of information.
    Glad you were able to explore the past with Graham Hancock. He has made a very compelling case for an ancient forgotten civilization.
    Plus no gradualism in the scablands.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      The thing that convinced me about "myth as fact" is the Northwest Native American myth of the bird flying from the ocean and wiping out all the life on the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington and Canada, that was dismissed as folklore. Until the Cascadia subduction zone was found to be the cause of megaquakes, and huge tidal waves proven by the Japanese "orphan Tsunami" records. I now believe every myth has a basis in fact, with the Ark story being one that appears in several versions, with several different "Noahs", depending on the country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
    I would suggest, considering the venomous replies by some on this site, that you just go ahead, make it policy anyone who mentions God, the Bible or Religion in a favorable light just be summarily banished from this site.

    Many here express this exact view but refuse to just censor and banish people. If you are going to say it, and express just be done with it and take action on it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      Well, that seems a bit severe, in that in this case, the Bible was being used as a historical document reference, and not as data to support any position. That was one of the misunderstandings I think. I do not know if someone can reconcile a belief in God and an Objectivist phlosophy, or possibly make some arrangement. I know several in here who are religious of one form or another, but do not impose it on others. I would not seek to ban anyone for a personal belief. If someone tries to force the issue, I will try to reason and make a factual discussion until it gets to the point of repetition. It is not just religion though that causes friction, I have seen some good people get into discussions and some just vehemently disagree to the point of hounding. That is as bad. Respect for all views should be just a social standard.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
        I have little to do today. Being in a hotel in Jefferson City, MO, I think I am going to pull out a direct comparison between Objectivism and Biblical principals.

        I have extensively studied the Bible, the Qur'an, I have read most of Ayn Rand's writings and clearly state there are not as many differences between Biblical Principals and Ayn Rand's philosophy,, with the single exception Ahn Rand was a devout and dogmatic atheist.

        I am NOT, REPEAT NOT promoting religion simply drawing direct and A=A comparisons.

        edited to add final thought.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
          I do not see you as promoting any agenda. My point was the "banish" part seems a bit strong. But I am not committed to any position (except politicians will do us no favors), I will change my position when presented strong logic and facts (again something you do not get from politicians or government). So I am most interested in hearing your thoughts. Thank You.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
            My personal view is quite binary.

            If one condemns, bashes, ridicules and otherwise attempts to force people out using the proverbial poison pen of intolerance. Do not hide behind statements claiming tolerance.

            If you are going to promote that strong a view, just take action instead of just running the mouth, or pen, or keyboard.

            If deists are not welcome, then just own up to it, make it policy and ban them.

            I am reminded of the same exact parallel in Atlas Shrugged when the government demanded Reardon give up his metal and took him to court, and he clearly stated, then just bring your guns and come take it. Own it for what it is, but do not hide behind rhetoric and try and hide what you are, in reality, doing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
              Hmm, I do not understand the term deists in this case, can you please explain? Thanks.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
                Those who are not atheists, but believe in a God, Gods, intelligent designer etc. etc..

                If you came on this sight espousing religion , God, Bible, and Creation, or being able to be religious and be an Objectivist. you are a Deist...and many on this site would use the venomous keyboard to excoriate you 7 ways to Sunday with little regard for logic or reason in their attack, and would attack you just like the Liberals attack everyone who does not agree with them.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
                  Pointing out, repeatedly even, that being a Deist is irrational is not verbal abuse or even rude or mean. It is merely pointing out reality. I've stayed much more kind than Ayn Rand herself was regarding Deists and Religionists.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
    Here we go again. Atheists castigating deists..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
      Yes HBD. As they should be.
      Humanity needs to stop assigning supernatural significance to purely natural phenomena.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
        Based on the objectivist philosophy, "individualism", "individual thought", and not trying to FORCE your personal view on others dictates that your personal agreement or not must be dealt with as tolerance, since lack of tolerance is also forcing your view on others and that force is contrary to objectivism.

        That "force" can take many forms, include the verbal abuse of those with views different from yours.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 7 years, 7 months ago
          Tolerance is completely incompatible with Objectivism. Only truth is compatible, and while some people may have different opinions on the truth, only one can be correct. I think you are confusing Objectivism with Libertarianism.
          I challenge you to find any "verbal abuse" I have dished out. Microaggressions are not abuse.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
            I do not believe I ever mentioned you by name. Based on your statement though your implication is that Ayn Rand was a flawless human with flawless logic, perfect reason, and nobody should ever question anything she wrote?

            Is that your implication Ayn Rand was perfect?

            Seems to me that implication borders in Deism. with Ayn Rand being the Goddess...be careful how dogmatic you portray Objectivism, and the primary aspect of objectivism, which if I am not mistaken is the "happiness of the individual."

            So if it makes one happy to believe in a God, and the primary goal is that individual happiness. reconcile that for me please.

            "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/obj...

            So if belief in a Deity makes ME happy, I personally receive comfort, and less stress in my life and therefore healthier living and higher quality of life, then all reason dictates my thinking for ME is correct since MY happiness is paramount.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
      I am missing your objection here, please elucidate...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
        Was neither objection nor praise. Just fact, like stating the Sun will rise in the morning and set at night.

        Neither good nor bad, just fact.

        Comment was more of a "Rolling my eyes again"//
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
          Do not confuse the point here, it is not about the myths themselves, or the validity of any religion, it is simply saying that do not dismiss ANY source of data, whether religious, factual, written, carved or spoken. There is a huge value in history, and historical records mainstream science ignores because they say "it ain't true" As an Objectivist, facts and truth are what is sought. Don't dismiss the source out of prejudice. That is what the article is saying.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 7 years, 7 months ago
            Flavius Josephus, was a Roman historian, and his person accounts validate countless biblical accounts.

            So like the Bible, or not, Agree with it or not. The Bible has been validated by science and secular historians. Seems to me everytime a science expedition is sent out to discredit the Bible, they end up proving the accounts as factual.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 7 years, 7 months ago
              Indeed, surprisingly there are a lot of old muslim scientists and historians that used the bible to refer to events, and then investigate various items from it in weather, history and geography. They also "translated" (interpreted) various books much as Flavius must have, and would agree/disagree or offer altering views. The point you make is indeed what I was driving at in regards to the Flood story, as well as a huge number of other cultural icons such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, various ancient Egyptian texts and books, Peruvian stories and Mayan stories. There is a whole lot in the Bible that requires their faith to believe in, and even then, there is probably some other explanation, just nothing any scientist has seen fit to explore. Ezekiel's chariot is one I know some have tried to reproduce. Doesn't means you have to approve, or disapprove of the religious aspect to inquire as to whether a specific portion is true or not. It also is an issue with having real data to support your conclusions.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo