Create account

replied 2887d
TrashPosterInTheDark
It is actually statistically likely. The time frame is pretty broad.
1 / 120
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2887d
Something around 4000 years is broad?
replied 2887d
Yes it is.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2887d
So statistically we should have been utterly destroyed since sumer? Are we living in a time frame where we are beating odds?
replied 2887d
We see disasters happen all the time. There is zero evidence of a global disaster. Just many different unrelated disasters, spread over a long time frame.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2887d
Megaliths are one big evidence rubbing itself on your face.
replied 2887d
Evidence of what? Evidence that old structures existed? No one disputes that.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2887d
Evidence that something ponctual happened all at once. Even all ancien civilisation are saying that about themself. All of them.
replied 2886d
Lots of old civilizations had disasters. That is not evidence for a global disaster. There is no evidence for any global disaster. At least outside of mass extinctions events.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2886d
Megaliths prove you wrong.
replied 2886d
No, they dont. They didnt all have disasters at the same time.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2886d
Are you denying what all ancient civilizations said about themselves?
replied 2886d
When the sea wall bust that made the Mediterranean, and later the one that made the Black Sea, both created what seemed to be world level floods from their perspectives.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2886d
And Mayans somehow had the same perspective too?
replied 2886d
They didnt have that problem. Most deaths and civilisation collapse in the Americas was from disease spread by early exorers.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2886d
No but they still did say the civilization was destroyed by a global flood somewhere around the dawn of Sumer which is in their calander. Interesting coincidence don't you think?
replied 2886d
Not really. Lots of old civilizations talk about past disasters. The evidence doesn't back the idea though.
replied 2886d
The truth is humanity is very old and civilizations come and go because the Earth changes and habitable places do too so people forget where they once were. Simple.
replied 2885d
Yes, and no. Sure humanity is old, but we never saw big civilizations until farming crops became possible about 12000years ago.
replied 2885d
This is incorrect. The pyramids in South America are over 20000 years old. They're so old their bases are covered in forests. The vast majority of technology has been here before.
replied 2885d
I think you likely added a zero to that.
replied 2877d
Nope. 20 THOUSAND with a T, years old. The history you were taught was a self-serving history formulated by Europeans so they could steal the 'new world'. It was only new to them.
replied 2877d
I understand human migration, and no history is not lies taught by Europeans. Obviously there was people here long before European settlers, it not large civilizations that old.
replied 2877d
You have not done enough reading. https://tinyurl.com/yakxdmbl
replied 2877d
I am well aware that there was migration to the Americas before the land bridge migration. This link doesnt claim there were massive cities 20000 years ago though.
replied 2877d
It shows you that there were people here tens of thousands of years ago and that they were negros. Which is completely contradictory to mainstream history. There's more links google em
replied 2877d
Interesting change of topic. Yes I know there is evidence of African, and Australian aboriginal migration to South America. You confuse grade school history with mainstream history.
replied 2877d
Doesn't matter what you call it really. The official story line of transatlantic slave trade etc. is a lie. It was created to support European colonialism Not sure how thats mainstream
replied 2877d
That is not mainstream. That is wrong. Slavery did happen. There was a slave trade.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2886d
It's always about water and around the same time. If it walks like a duck, quack like a duck then it's a duck.
replied 2886d
Yes, and his font quack like a duck. Ancient stories, but no evidence to back them. The stories are not the same at all.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2886d
No evidences beside magaliths destroyed all across the globe, massive amount of organic squish burried under the ground, acient folklor litterally saying so etc etc?
replied 2885d
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 2885d
Beside, what else could actually utterly destroy the biggest stone structures ever built?
replied 2885d
If they were destroyed they wouldnt be there for you to point to. That said local disasters are enough.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2884d
Are you for real? All these is left is small remainings.
replied 2884d
Yet you extrapolate so much about them.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
I don't. You do.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2885d
The Earth is covered by 70%. That's plenty of water.
replied 2885d
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 2884d
According to? Your paradigms?
replied 2884d
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 2883d
Go on show me your math. Can't wait to have a good laugh.
replied 2883d
This series might help you. It is done by an actual scientist.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
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 2883d
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 2883d
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 2883d
Yes, and you are the dogmatic person in this conversation. You believe religious dogma over facts.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
Sure sure projecting much? I talk about megaliths, you talk about creation vs evolution like if it was slightly related.
replied 2883d
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 2879d
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 2879d
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 2879d
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 2879d
With the events not happening at the same time everywhere. How does a global event not happen at the same time?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2879d
Well that's the thing, they talk about the same event otherwise they wouldn't share the same myth.
replied 2879d
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 2877d
No but the odds of such thing are quite slim.
replied 2876d
Well you are currently doing just that.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2876d
Otherwise how can humanity completely lose their construction techniques that was globally known and spread?
replied 2875d
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 2876d
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 2875d
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 2879d
Not flooding? Then how? And how complete sites managed to be buried in the ground?
replied 2879d
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 2879d
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 2879d
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 2877d
Obviously it was global to some extent. AFIC there were survivors.
replied 2876d
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 2876d
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 2875d
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.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2876d
Meaning that the coasts were probably the most affected and what would have standed behind mountains would have suffered less damages.
replied 2875d
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.
replied 2879d
Their shape offers no protection, except against gravity.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2877d
It absolutely offers protection. Water pressure on pyramidal shape would be inferior than applied on a perpandicular wall.
replied 2876d
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 2876d
No I'm saying that water somehow moved accross lands coming from the oceans. The water movement was horizontal, not vertical.
replied 2875d
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 2883d
Real scientist don't laugh at people. They make arguments.
replied 2883d
Also you must not talk to real scientists much. I have. They most certainly laugh at people.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
Sorry to pop your bubble but they are fake scientists.
replied 2883d
Oh, and only creationist scientists are real for you? I'll stick with the phD holders, and published researchers.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2879d
Still bringing up religion my dogmatic off topic fellow?
replied 2879d
You brought it up by using religious sources of info. Maybe you are just unaware that talkorigin is a Christian fundamentalist group.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2879d
Unawared and irrelevant. The accounts listed are all real and authentic.
replied 2879d
No, it's mostly bullshit. They will also have you believe the Earth is 6000 _10000 years old, and other such nonsense.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2879d
I'm not saying what the accounts say is authentic, I'm saying the account themselves are authentic you twat.
replied 2879d
So someone either honestly lied, or was honestly wrong. That is fine.
replied 2883d
Actually science is about debunking theories. He does that here clearly.
replied 2883d
I'll let this guy explain differences in volume to you.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
I'm not gonna watch any dumb video. Show me your maths.
replied 2883d
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 2883d
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 2883d
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 2883d
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 2879d
Keep digging.
replied 2879d
Oh, I have thoroughly refuted your ideas. The idea that the surface of the Earth disobeyed physics to cause the flood is absurd.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
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 2883d
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 2879d
Sure. A meteorite hitting water won't move water. Logic isn't your strength isn't it?
replied 2879d
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 2879d
Somehow Mt. Everest is filled with fossilized marine shells.
replied 2879d
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 2886d
BTW the ancient stories are pretty much the same if you dare to look at them.
replied 2885d
I have looked at some, and they are not the same, and have a huge spread as to when they happened. I once read a biblical flood apologist book. Really stupid stuff in there.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2885d
Such as?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
replied 2885d
Talkorogins... lol. I prefer valid sources of information. Religious sources of information are no good for figuring out how thigs work.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2884d
They don't talk about religion you moron. And I'm still waiting for an answer.
replied 2884d
Thru are a Christian propaganda group. One of the worst garbage sites out there.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
BTW even if it's garbage Christian propaganda group which account exactly isn't real? Seriously at this point you just sound retarded and completely lack of argument.
replied 2883d
Most Christians accounts of history are not real. The most they get right is that cities existed. They are not actually history. They are stories meant to teach a lesson.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
And what about the Wikipedia article? Is that too much facts for your little brain to process so you had to dissmiss it?
replied 2883d
Actually if you actually read those myths you see how they are far to spread out in time to be talking about the same event. Your own link defeats your argument.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
Which one? Because the majority talks about a global wiping flood. Obviously you haven't read them.
replied 2883d
At very different times, and with a limited understanding of what the entire world was.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
Exactly. Interesting isn't it?
replied 2883d
Not really. Rather trivial, and doesnt lead to any interesting conclusions.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2879d
Unless you start using your brain.
replied 2879d
That is how you see it doesnt support these wild conclusions.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2883d
Still waiting for an answer.
replied 2883d
I did answer actually. When you asked "what about these" I told you the source was garbage.
replied 2886d
I am denying that they understood the concept of what the entire world was. Their civilization being wiped out would have meant the world was wiped out from their perspective.


About Privacy Terms Stats