Create account

replied 2125d
TrashPosterInTheDark
Yeah, that evidence does not back your absurd idea of a global flood. Beside the fact there isn't enough water for such a thing.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2125d
Beside, what else could actually utterly destroy the biggest stone structures ever built?
replied 2125d
If they were destroyed they wouldnt be there for you to point to. That said local disasters are enough.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2124d
Are you for real? All these is left is small remainings.
replied 2124d
Yet you extrapolate so much about them.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
I don't. You do.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2125d
The Earth is covered by 70%. That's plenty of water.
replied 2125d
It is not nearly enough to drown the planet. Those who believe the flood myth dont seem to understand volume. That is okay for the bronze age the ideas came from, but not modern times.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2124d
According to? Your paradigms?
replied 2124d
According to basic math. Adding that volume of water would require too much water to be added, and it would have had nowhere to go to disappear.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
Go on show me your math. Can't wait to have a good laugh.
replied 2123d
This series might help you. It is done by an actual scientist.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
But now I get it. You brush off evidences because you are afraid it might shackles your dogmatic paradigm. You just exposed your yourself with such video 😂
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
Beside this video is 100% off topic. Where arent talking about evolution whatsoever. You are making it a dogmatic case. I don't.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
Dogmatic people doest not worth arguing with. They only care about proving their dogmas rather than finding the truth, no matter what it is.
replied 2123d
Yes, and you are the dogmatic person in this conversation. You believe religious dogma over facts.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
Sure sure projecting much? I talk about megaliths, you talk about creation vs evolution like if it was slightly related.
replied 2123d
I want talking about evolution. I was talking about religious flood myths. You seem to think large old structures prove your flood myth. That series help dispel such funny ideas.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
So basically you have flood myths all across the globe from all the older civilizations. You also have large structures (the largest ever built) utterly destroyed. 1 + 1 = 2
replied 2119d
Not all destroyed, and not by flooding. You see lots of similar myths from old civilizations. Doesnt mean those things actually happened. Especially with the differences in the myths.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
And the difference in the myths relies with details. Exactly what one would expect to see if different cultures would talk about the same event but from their very own perspective.
replied 2119d
With the events not happening at the same time everywhere. How does a global event not happen at the same time?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
Well that's the thing, they talk about the same event otherwise they wouldn't share the same myth.
replied 2119d
So if I saw I saw a flood on the flood plains at 6000 years ago, and someone else saw a flood 5000 years ago in India, you conclude they were the same flood, and happened globally?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2116d
No but the odds of such thing are quite slim.
replied 2116d
Well you are currently doing just that.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2115d
Otherwise how can humanity completely lose their construction techniques that was globally known and spread?
replied 2115d
We didnt lose anything. We have far better techniques now. It is like the myth that Roman's made better concrete. Just because we we often cheap out doesnt mean we cant.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2115d
I meant that the odds of such multiple desctructive events happening is such a short time frame are slimmer than a bigger happning just once.
replied 2115d
We have seen such events over a far short time span, I think you are wrong. Natural disasters happen. Especially since the disasters those places had were common to their area.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
Not flooding? Then how? And how complete sites managed to be buried in the ground?
replied 2119d
Not all of them were buried. You would think there would be a massively disturbed global sediment layer around the world if there was a global flood. There is no such layer though.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
I think the ones near the "event" were burried while the ones further or those protected by mountains have simply been destroyed except for the pyramids because of their shape.
replied 2119d
There is no further off, and closer, if the flood was global.it should have happened everywhere is Everest was below water. So it should be all, or not.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2116d
Obviously it was global to some extent. AFIC there were survivors.
replied 2116d
What do you mean by "global to some extent?" Are you claiming it was a global shallow flood that only hurt coasts? Are you saying it was only certain continents?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2115d
Meaning that the coasts were probably the most affected and what would have standed behind mountains would have suffered less damages.
replied 2115d
The sediment movement something that ridiculous would have caused would have been very noticable. It would be impossible to cover up. There is no evidence to support such a wild idea.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2115d
I just mean that damages was probably not equal everywhere depending on how far you were from what triggered the water movement and the geographic landscape.
replied 2115d
Nothing could trigger something like that. It would take magic. Physics wouldnt allow the continents to sink below the ocean or for water to flow up onto land out of the oceans.
replied 2119d
Their shape offers no protection, except against gravity.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2116d
It absolutely offers protection. Water pressure on pyramidal shape would be inferior than applied on a perpandicular wall.
replied 2116d
As I said, from gravity. Which is irrelevant. The world was not suddenly crushed uned a new ocean. Oh wait, you are going to claim that coal and oil appeared suddenly during the flood.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2115d
No I'm saying that water somehow moved accross lands coming from the oceans. The water movement was horizontal, not vertical.
replied 2115d
That is an even worse idea. You are saying water decided to flow up hill out of the oceans then. God did it is the only way to explain such nonsense.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
Real scientist don't laugh at people. They make arguments.
replied 2123d
Also you must not talk to real scientists much. I have. They most certainly laugh at people.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
Sorry to pop your bubble but they are fake scientists.
replied 2123d
Oh, and only creationist scientists are real for you? I'll stick with the phD holders, and published researchers.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
Still bringing up religion my dogmatic off topic fellow?
replied 2119d
You brought it up by using religious sources of info. Maybe you are just unaware that talkorigin is a Christian fundamentalist group.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
Unawared and irrelevant. The accounts listed are all real and authentic.
replied 2119d
No, it's mostly bullshit. They will also have you believe the Earth is 6000 _10000 years old, and other such nonsense.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
I'm not saying what the accounts say is authentic, I'm saying the account themselves are authentic you twat.
replied 2119d
So someone either honestly lied, or was honestly wrong. That is fine.
replied 2123d
Actually science is about debunking theories. He does that here clearly.
replied 2123d
I'll let this guy explain differences in volume to you.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
I'm not gonna watch any dumb video. Show me your maths.
replied 2123d
5.1×10^8 Km^2 * 8.848 km = 4.5*10^9km^3 of added water volume to the Earth. Where did it go after the flood?
replied 2123d
5.1×10^8 Km^2 * 8.848 km = 5.7km^3 of added water volume to the Earth. Where did it go after the flood?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
A huge meteorite hitting the ocean could have made similar damages at similar scale. In both scenarios no changes of water volumes are required.
replied 2123d
Nope, that is false. It would not have caused a flood. We do know what that causes, and know when those event happened. Long before there were humans.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
Sure. A meteorite hitting water won't move water. Logic isn't your strength isn't it?
replied 2119d
Move water, sure. Cause a tsunami, sure. Cause a global flood, no. Especially not one that puts Everest under water. There isn't enough water on Earth for that.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
Somehow Mt. Everest is filled with fossilized marine shells.
replied 2119d
As it should be since that land was below the ocean when the Indian plate crashed into the Asian plate. This was far back, like the timeframes it takes for things to fossilize.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2123d
This can easily be explained by a change of the earth's suface geometry (mountains height and oceans depth).A rapid change could have simply trigger mass of water to move across lands
replied 2123d
How could that rapid change happen? Chemical differentiation happened long ago. Granite plates float of the mantel higher than basaltic plates. They dont suddenly sink into the mantle.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2119d
Keep digging.
replied 2119d
Oh, I have thoroughly refuted your ideas. The idea that the surface of the Earth disobeyed physics to cause the flood is absurd.