30,000 feet of water?????

[Hooded_Crow]

New Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the Earth

Based in part on studies at Brookhaven Lab's National Synchrotron Light Source, researchers from Northwestern University and the University of New Mexico report evidence for the ingredients of water bound up in rock deep in Earth's mantle.

www.bnl.gov

I just read the reports from science. I have been seeing similar things for about 20 years, but it has become more certain recently with more research.

'Dehydration melting at those conditions, also observed in the study's high-pressure experiments, suggests the transition zone may contain oceans worth of H2O dissolved in high-pressure rock. The findings alter previous assumptions about the Earth's composition.'

An 'ocean's worth' is not an ocean. The water is dissolved in the rock.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is under pressure and high temperature. There has been evidence of the water coming out of the crystal (the melting of the crystaline form.)

Earth has a vast interior ocean, 400-miles under our feet, that creates 'ringwoodite' gems

Aided by a mineral called ringwoodite, researchers found evidence of a vast ocean trapped inside Earth, deep beneath the United States.

www.earth.com

Anyway the water is there and the argument that there is not enough water is wrong.

No, it is not water and it is not accessible. Well not without vaporizing the surface. Why are you so intent on murdering Noah? Tell me, do you know that there is water in concrete too? It is in there at far higher concentrations than in the mantle.

If we can see horses pulling the sun then we should accept the stories.
There is evidence of a huge flood in the region and there are stories also.

And if there was evidence of a huge flood then we could believe in it. But there is no evidence for such a flood. We know of older floods that were very large, but we have no evidence at all for a the incredibly large flood of Noah's Ark.

Oh, and one more question:

Does ice float in your world?

 

[Argentbear]

That is under pressure and high temperature. There has been evidence of the water coming out of the crystal (the melting of the crystaline form.)

Earth has a vast interior ocean, 400-miles under our feet, that creates 'ringwoodite' gems

Aided by a mineral called ringwoodite, researchers found evidence of a vast ocean trapped inside Earth, deep beneath the United States.

www.earth.com

Anyway the water is there and the argument that there is not enough water is wrong.



If we can see horses pulling the sun then we should accept the stories.
There is evidence of a huge flood in the region and there are stories also.

we aren't seeing billion of cubic meters of water geysering out of the earth so why should we accept the myth of Noah's flood?

 

[blü 2]

All I said is that there is plenty of water in the mantle. This water could have been released for a world wide flood. The Bible actually seems to talk about something like that happening in the flood story. So your argument about the lack of water is gone.

Not until you explain where that extra 1.1 billion cubic miles of water necessary to cover the tallest mountains is now.

I believe the flood was a large local flood and the evidence is there for that and the Bible can be translated to agree with that. So arguing that the Bible is wrong is gone also.

The bible account is explicit. Genesis 7:19, you'll recall, says "And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them 15 cubits deep."
So as for historical truth, the Genesis flood is overwhelmingly a FAIL. Mount Everest has not been under water in the last hundred million years, doubtless more but you can look it up for yourself.

To rub that in, you have the absence of any universal geological flood layer, and the absence of genetic bottlenecks in every species of land animal, all of the same date as the geological layer.

And more bad news ─ Cinderella's coach was NOT a magically transformed pumpkin.

The God of the Bible is the same God that created the earth billions of years ago, so what you said about when the Bible God appeared in history is irrelevant.

Nope. Gods are human inventions and humans have only been around for the last 250,000 years maximum. The god of the bible didn't exist until some time into the second millennium BCE, the earliest archaeological evidence pointing to c. 1500 BCE. If you can back any significantly earlier time with such evidence, we can discuss it further then.

Humanity, in searching for God, invented other gods and worshipped them. The one true God, YHWH, revealed Himself and His name to Moses and from that time monotheism was taught from God but humans continued to worship idols, contrary to what the true God told them.

That's simply incorrect. Up to around the end of the Babylonian captivity, worship of Yahweh was henotheistic, as the bible unambiguously makes clear. (Perhaps the most specific example among them is Judges 11, where Jephthah sends a message to the Amorites ─

"23 So the the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you not to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess."​

I think I already referred to a number of other relevant quotes, but if not, say so and I'll set them out for you again.

No I don't think the ancient authors were familiar with scientific cosmology.
Nevertheless a metaphor is a metaphor and as humans find out more about science and cosmology then that is how we recognise the metaphors.

What "metaphor" are you referring to, exactly?

I don't read it as a thousand years for every instance where the Bible mentions a day. But "a day" in the Bible does not always mean a literal 24 hour day.

It's particularly clear in Genesis that a 24 period is being referred to, by the repeated use of the phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, a (second, third, &c) day".

I suppose that insisting that the Bible must be read literally is the only way that you have to say that it is wrong however.
It is better to seek the true meaning of the Bible than to just seek to show that it is wrong.

Only in contexts where the bible is claimed to a history book. The earliest parts, in particular, are folk history plain and pure.

 

[PureX]

The wisdom that I get from your posts are that facts are irrelevant and whatever anyone wishes to believe are the "actual" facts of anything.

Well, I can't help what you refuse to or are unwilling to understand.

Right now, I have Covid for the first time.

I'm sorry to hear this. I hope it passes soon and with minimal discomfort.

It has been like a cross between the flu and a suped up cold. Just within the hour a friend recommended I drink plenty of Schwepps tonic water that contains quinine. Because, as we all know, quinine cures Covid.

Except that there is no evidence that it is a miracle cure or even a palliative. In some instances, people have died from believing this myth.

Perhaps your friend was trying to offer you a placebo. Those do actually work for a lot of people when taken under the right circumstances. Even those "factually" they should not. And the reason for this is that facts do not = truth.

So, what is the lesson of the myth?

Well, you have to interpret it to figure that out. That process of interpretation is a big part in how and why myths are effective. Myths are symbolic representations of aspects of 'meta'-reality. Meta-reality is a COGNITIVE phenomena. So the myths are intended to activate and relate that aspect of our being.

When you go to an art museum and look at a paining, do you reject it as a "lie" because it's only factually paint and canvas? I certainly hope not. Or do you ask yourself why someone has expended so much of their time and expertise to create this 'artificial' representation of reality for you? I hope so. Or you're just wasting your own time going to the museum. And I am sure that by contemplating the artifact the artist has put before you, you could come up with a number of possible reason why it's there, and what it is intended to show you, or share with you: the artists experience of reality, captured in paint, and in time.

What reasons should be applied to letting the myth persist so that others might also harm themselves in their misguided belief of miracle Covid cures?

Again, you are assuming facts = truth. But they don't. So you assume harm where it is not necessarily evident.

Where is the valuable life lesson in the quinine myth that renders demonstration of it as anything but factual to be moot?

The valuable lesson is that facts do not = truth. And that (quinine) placebos do work for some people, sometimes, as proof of it. You are blinding yourself to this possibility because you truly believe that facts = truth. The lesson is to un-blind yourself. But you're fighting it. as all 'true believers' do when they are confronted with realities that do not comport with their beliefs.

 

[PureX]

No,, pretend history just does not work. That is the one way that it does not work. Some people will always make the mistake of taking it seriously.

Archeologists are creating 'pretend history' based on their imaginations and the artifacts they dig up all the time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

These would have been people who experienced flooding, sometimes severe, so it's a given that their god would have had a use for destructive flooding, even if it makes God look cruel.

The key aspect of that story for me is that the flood they described submerged all land. no dry land was visible. I don't think they experienced that kind of flood. We see floods in life and on the news, and there is always visible land, but not with the biblical flood.

not one comment yet on what anyone thinks the story is intended to tell us about the world.

I told you my hypothesis at post 21. You didn't comment.

"The most interesting thing about that story is why it's in Genesis. It seems odd to describe a deity in such unflattering terms - it errs in its creation of man, regrets its error and attempts to remedy it in an inefficient and cruel manner, and then clumsily attempts to repair the problem using the same breeding stock. So why create that story? I have a hypothesis: they had found marine fossils on mountaintops and needed an explanation for it. Not knowing about seafloor raising, they probably assumed that the mountains as they found them had been there since their creation and therefore must have once been submerged."

no one is even discussing the meaning or message of the story, which is the whole point of it's existence.

But there is no message to the story apart from whatever the reader imputes to the myth like a verbal Rorschach test of sorts. What the Bible writers leave out is why they wrote the story and what problem it was intended to answer.

I guess in this sense the religion haters succeed at distracting everyone away from the actual purpose and message of these kinds of myths by obsessing on factuality.

Religion haters? The hater here is you.

Distracting? What are they - crows distracted by metal objects? If they had answers, they'd have given them to you, but they don't.

Perhaps this particular myth is about how God, through nature, forces a 'clean slate' on we humans, occasionally.

Here's a nice illustration of why I say that this story has no lesson. It exists in my opinion because the ancients assumed the world had been flooded to the highest mountaintops and above once when they found marine fossils on those highest mountaintops.

It's that simple, which is what makes the hypothesis elegant. It's the kind of thing people would do - not write stories depicting their deity as cruel and incompetent. They had to have a good reason to do that, and it isn't hard to surmise what that likely was.

obsessing over factuality completely misses the point.

It's you that obsesses. You obsess about critical thinkers thinking critically.

And as we've seen, there is no point.

You keep writing under the assumption that these stories must be valuable but can't say what that value is. Is pointing that out obsessing to you? I doubt it. I think that you just don't like to read words that challenge your assumptions and are looking for a way to dissuade people from making such comments much like MAGA with its TDS meme, which can be understood as, "if you criticize Trump, you must be deranged." For you, it's "obsessed."

I do think it's very useful for us to share with each other how we interpret them

Except that it's not. You shared your interpretation. Did you think that that was useful to anybody? It was an example of retrofitting modern knowledge to stories that their authors didn't have.

Your words were, "Perhaps this particular myth is about how God, through nature, forces a 'clean slate' on we humans, occasionally. A 'restart'. Especially when we become incorrigible. An interesting thought given that humanity is now facing a similar possible 'restart' due to our inability to reign in our own greed and stupidity."

You're intimating things like mass extinctions and global warming causing a major correction. Those are modern ideas, and why I call these stories verbal Rorschach tests. Here, you've attached YOUR thoughts and suggested that the ancients who wrote those stories might have been thinking them, too.

How about a joke about Rorschach tests and obsessions:

A guy goes to a shrink who administers a series of Rorschach ink blot tests on him. "Tell me what you see here," says the doctor.

"I see a nude woman," replied the patient.

"And here?"

"I see a couple making love."

"And here?"

"I see an orgy."

"Sir, I think that you are overly preoccupied with sexual issues. You have a sex problem."

"*I* have a sex problem? You're the one with a desk full of dirty pictures."


​

 

[PureX]

Humans have not stopped creating myths. If the lessons of a myth are important and essential to discussions of validity in that they eliminate need of such discussions as a mere distraction. Then it should be that simple to show the debate of factuality is irrelevant and unnecessary and not just another straw man to hold against one side.

I've offered one example and I await the explanation showing me the meaning in this particular case and how we need not worry whether the myth is a fact or not.

There are all kinds of myths. Some very short term and specific, others very long term and universal. The flood myth is a very long term and very universal myth. The club soda covid myth is very short term and very specific. Comparing these as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest. As they each have very different purposes and intentions, and relationships with factuality.

Also, keep in mind that your idea of the future is quite mythical, though not in the ideological level as the flood myth. So is your idea set of the past. Though again with many variants in term of ideology and factuality.

We humans are myth-makers through and through. We live in an imagined reality created from direct but limited experience, imagination, here-say, reasoning, intuition, and a lot of other factors. This popular axiom that facts = truth and that everything else is just whimsy is simply wrong, and dangerously misleading. If it causes it to presume that what we read in a history book is that actually happened, we are out of our minds. As that is not even remotely how it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are all kinds of myths. Some very short term and specific, others very long term and universal. The flood myth is a very long term and very universal myth. The club soda covid myth is very short term and very specific. Comparing these as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest.

No. It is not.

I see attempts to wiggle out of using a reasonable, recent example to be an act of intellectual dishonesty. I'm telling you now, such things don't surprise me.

That there are all kinds of myths doesn't eliminate the example.

By the recent origin of the myth of quinine, it can only be short-term in its life. However, it is persisting. The flood myth is simply older and I don't know what "very universal" means. It's like being very planet. It tells me nothing and certainly has no bearing on any comparison with your claims. The specific flood myth of Genesis has become widely known. Again, a triviality with nothing to prevent comparison with more recent myths.

I chose it precisely because I was aware it would foil you and send you on some reaching, desperate trip on the good ship rationalization.

As they each have very different purposes and intentions, and relationships with factuality.

Of course they are different myths.

Also, keep in mind that your idea of the future is quite mythical, though not in the ideological level as the flood myth.

So. No problem with a comparison. You are making a comparison now. A comparison that is withering your claims of intellectual dishonesty quite nicely.

So is your idea set of the past. Though again with many variants in term of ideology and factuality.

They are both set in the past and persist into the present. Again, a big SO WHAT!

We humans are myth-makers through and through. We live in an imagined reality created from direct but limited experience, imagination, here-say, reasoning, intuition, and a lot of other factors. This popular axiom that facts = truth and that everything else is just whimsy is simply wrong, and dangerously misleading. If it causes it to presume that what we read in a history book is that actually happened, we are out of our minds. As that is not even remotely how it is.

Wow, what a wordy withdrawal replete with a new straw man (actually an old one). I'm coming to find this is fairly typical and unfortunate, given you seem knowledgeable. Though, I consider it strange that you both seem it and reject knowledge as meaningless in comparison to feelings.

So, nothing to indicate that the factuality of a myth cannot be argued independent of any lessons and meanings contained with in a myth just as I've said. Claiming that the failure to address internal meanings remains a straw man.

Thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I can't help what you refuse to or are unwilling to understand.

The sort of response I would expect regarding my interest and understanding here. I believe your efforts are understood, hence your reliance on schoolyard tactics instead of direct address to the issues.

You've clearly indicated many times that knowledge, information and facts are irrelevant and whatever a person subjectively views is reality. Never sure how one comes to such an irrational conclusion, but you have ensured others recognize that as your position.

I'm sorry to hear this. I hope it passes soon and with minimal discomfort.

Thank you. Compared to many and despite the record, I'm pushing past it fairly well.

Perhaps your friend was trying to offer you a placebo.

Perhaps, but irrelevant.

Those do actually work for a lot of people when taken under the right circumstances.

I wonder how it is known they work? Oh, that is right. Research and evidence. Again, irrelevant.

Even those "factually" they should not.

Except that we factually have knowledge of why they do sometimes work. You are using those facts here.

And the reason for this is that facts do not = truth.

Now we see the goal posts rushing around the field. You really seem to be keen on logical fallacies. The discussion is not about facts = truth. The discussion regards your straw man.

Well, you have to interpret it to figure that out. That process of interpretation is a big part in how and why myths are effective. Myths are symbolic representations of aspects of 'meta'-reality. Meta-reality is a COGNITIVE phenomena. So the myths are intended to activate and relate that aspect of our being.

When you go to an art museum and look at a paining, do you reject it as a "lie" because it's only factually paint and canvas? I certainly hope not. Or do you ask yourself why someone has expended so much of their time and expertise to create this 'artificial' representation of reality for you? I hope so. Or you're just wasting your own time going to the museum. And I am sure that by contemplating the artifact the artist has put before you, you could come up with a number of possible reason why it's there, and what it is intended to show you, or share with you: the artists experience of reality, captured in paint, and in time.

Again, you are assuming facts = truth. But they don't. So you assume harm where it is not necessarily evident.

The valuable lesson is that facts do not = truth. And that (quinine) placebos do work for some people, sometimes, as proof of it. You are blinding yourself to this possibility because you truly believe that facts = truth. The lesson is to un-blind yourself. But you're fighting it. as all 'true believers' do when they are confronted with realities that do not comport with their beliefs.

Lots of false equivalence and other examples of logical fallacies, but beyond nothing burger...well nothing. So, dodge and all, we are no closer to you showing anyone why the reality of a mythical story cannot be argued independent of whatever internal truths are hidden within.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are all kinds of myths. Some very short term and specific, others very long term and universal. The flood myth is a very long term and very universal myth. The club soda covid myth is very short term and very specific. Comparing these as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest. As they each have very different purposes and intentions, and relationships with factuality.

Also, keep in mind that your idea of the future is quite mythical, though not in the ideological level as the flood myth. So is your idea set of the past. Though again with many variants in term of ideology and factuality.

We humans are myth-makers through and through. We live in an imagined reality created from direct but limited experience, imagination, here-say, reasoning, intuition, and a lot of other factors. This popular axiom that facts = truth and that everything else is just whimsy is simply wrong, and dangerously misleading. If it causes it to presume that what we read in a history book is that actually happened, we are out of our minds. As that is not even remotely how it is.

The question has been put to you to demonstrate your claims regarding arguments of the factuality of myths and some alleged dependence on divining internal meaning. It has been demonstrated sufficiently that claiming the relationship and that it is a necessity to the carry on any such argument continues to be a straw man.

Do you consider avoiding support for a claim and failing to refute rejection to be the pursuit of intellectual honesty? I don't know anyone that could rationally see it that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Archeologists are creating 'pretend history' based on their imaginations and the artifacts they dig up all the time.

Really? Prove it. I am not an archaeologist so I cannot confirm or refute this right now. But I am betting that you are just venting about another topic that you do not understand.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If it causes it to presume that what we read in a history book is that actually happened, we are out of our minds. As that is not even remotely how it is.

More of your doomsday exaggeration: "we're out of our minds."

So what if a critical thinker provisionally grants that something historians have wrong might be correct but it wasn't? What could be less impactful? Suppose Caesar or Jesus or Socrates never actually lived. It's irrelevant if one has a false belief about either of those things.

This popular axiom that facts = truth and that everything else is just whimsy is simply wrong, and dangerously misleading

And yet more.

Here you are again playing Chicken Little by implying serious problems that just don't exist: "dangerously misleading."

Why do you think that you are qualified to suggest to people that their epistemology is dangerous? I do what you warn against, yet my epistemology works well for me.

Have you made those mistakes and encountered these dangers in your own life as a result? Do you know people that have? I'm guessing not. It seems to me that you've just got a strange idea based in nothing.

Your nihilistic epistemology doesn't seem to be doing anything for you. You make a lot of strange comments about reality which have no value to me, and I can't see where they are of value to you.

Also, that was a restatement of your usual misunderstanding of how an empiricist experiences reality: facts and nothing else. The caricature of the critical thinker as an empty vessel reasoning like a computer and doing nothing else is incorrect.

Here's one of my favorite examples of that from Deepak Chopra. Here, the atheist is like a Roomba bumping into walls making measurements but otherwise devoid of experience. Chopra also takes a dig at the religious, who he would probably call inauthentic and thus relatively lifeless, and he'd be talking about you (the smallest line says "is having your own experience"):

My inner life is rich and is much more than a collection of facts. Those facts are my understanding of how the world works and how I interact with it. I've written words like these to you:

"I like strawberries. The pleasure of eating one is not a rational experience. It doesn't involve reasoning. I simply discovered that eating strawberries is a pleasant experience, one I like to recreate from time to time. Where reason comes into it is in acquiring strawberries, and that is the value of reason (the rider) - to facilitate the passions (the horse), which are irrational. The rational mind serves the irrational mind, without which life is empty and meaningless. Without reason, unbridled passion is destructive. Life tends to be shorter and less pleasant. The two are a team. Or, if you prefer, reason is the brush and the pigments on the palette are the passions. One needs both to avoid either a blank canvass (colorless reasoning) or a messy canvass (chaotic passion)."

Here it is again written to a different poster with some of the same metaphor and imagery:

"Irrational thought is not a bad thing as long as we don't use it to modify our belief set. Irrational just means not a product or derivative of reason. All nonverbal thought is irrational. Instincts are irrational, but can be lifesaving. An infant doesn't use reason in the act of nursing. Reason is not involved in enjoying a sunset or feeling thirsty, although reason might help get to where a beautiful sunset is expected or help you slake that thirst. Passions aren't reasoned. Moral intuitions aren't reasoned. None of these are rational and none are knowledge.

"The value of reason applied to the senses and memory is to manage these irrational experiences to favor having the desirable ones while avoiding the undesirable ones as much as possible, as with that sunset and drink. Reason gets you to the beach of a tropical island sipping a pina colada, but reason isn't involved in the irrational (unreasoned) but pleasant experiences that result.

"This idea of rational thought versus irrational passions is an old one. The mind has been compared to a horse and rider, the horse representing the passions and motivations, the rider being the reason that is applied to regulate them to optimize experience. We need both. Lose your passions and the ability to experience pleasure (called anhedonia in psychiatry, a term that applies to major depression) and you become suicidal. If the rider passes out, the horses may cause the death of both horse and rider, as with foolish people who live short, impulsive lives."

All I said is that there is plenty of water in the mantle. This water could have been released for a world wide flood. The Bible actually seems to talk about something like that happening in the flood story. So your argument about the lack of water is gone.

No, that argument is not gone. You'd need to identify the water and the mechanism that brought it up from the mantle through the crust, left it there for forty days, and then returned it to the mantle. The water that comes up through springs is not coming from the mantle.

I believe the flood was a large local flood and the evidence is there for that and the Bible can be translated to agree with that. So arguing that the Bible is wrong is gone also.

You don't need evidence for that. We know that large local floods occur. We see them in the news. But they are nothing like the global flood.

Nevertheless a metaphor is a metaphor and as humans find out more about science and cosmology then that is how we recognise the metaphors.

The creation myth is not metaphor as I already explained here:

Myth isn't metaphor or allegory. The three are specific literary forms with only the latter two using symbolism, where symbolism means one thing standing for another. She was the apple of his eye is metaphor, where the apple is a desirable and valuable object standing for "she." Allegories are longer accounts, but still substitute symbolic characters and deeds for known actual characters and deeds. In Gulliver's Travels, Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era was symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap.

As I explained on this thread yesterday here, myths are erroneous speculations that intend to explain reality as the mythicists find it - why the world is how they find it, and in the case of biblical myths, with the assumption that a tri-omni deity (which includes omnibenevolence) rules nature and their lives

"a day" in the Bible does not always mean a literal 24 hour day.

The days of creation are literal days with mornings and evenings, including the day of rest, which the Hebrews were commanded to emulate one 24-hour day out of every seven..

 

[PureX]

I suppose that for people who see the story as untrue and that there was no God who created a flood, there is no lesson to be learned in the story. There is no God teaching anything.
But yes, we are heading to destroying the earth and nature through our greed and stupidity. But I see this also as showing the truth of the Bible prophecies on what will happen to the earth.

They are only prophesies if they happen. Otherwise, they are just warnings. The flood story is a symbolic warning about the possibility of a mass extinction brought on by mankind's arrogance, and hubris, and stupidity.

It is important to see our greed and stupidity and to stop destroying the earth but it is more important to see the truth about God and the Bible and the judgement that God is bringing and the gospel message.

They are one and the same, aren't they?

It is not just the earth that is being destroyed. Humans also need to be saved from their blindness and the judgement of God. The salvation of humans is more important.

Again, I think it's all of a piece. We will either choose to live together through the spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity, or we will destroy ourselves with our fear, greed, selfishness and stupidity. As it goes with the individual, it will also go for the whole species. Either way, the planet will remain, and life will evolve, And if any of us are left alive, the chance to get it right next time will begin. Otherwise, that's it for us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose that for people who see the story as untrue and that there was no God who created a flood, there is no lesson to be learned in the story.

So now the story has to be true to contain a message?

Your words: "No I don't think the ancient authors were familiar with scientific cosmology. Nevertheless a metaphor is a metaphor and as humans find out more about science and cosmology then that is how we recognise the metaphors."

So then the creation story has no lesson, either, unless it is literally true? We know it's not.

But yes, we are heading to destroying the earth and nature through our greed and stupidity. But I see this also as showing the truth of the Bible prophecies on what will happen to the earth.

Biblical prophecy had nothing to say about global warming or ecological despoilation unless you want to include the apocalypse, which would be the ultimate ecological catastrophe.

The flood story is a symbolic warning about the possibility of a mass extinction brought on by mankind's arrogance, and hubris, and stupidity.

No, it isn't.

It's a story about mass extinction caused by a vengeful, cruel and not-too-bright deity because as was common in these myths, it was enraged again. The implied warning is to submit to this deity or die. It's about obedience and submission or else. The beasts were just collateral damage by a deity that didn't care what it killed or how.

You can see the appeal of such a god to MAGA and why they are drawn to Christianity and Trump. Trump, like the Christian god, and like themselves, is also vengeful, cruel and not-too-bright.

They are one and the same, aren't they?

That was a reply to, "It is important to see our greed and stupidity and to stop destroying the earth but it is more important to see the truth about God and the Bible and the judgement that God is bringing and the gospel message."

If gods don't exist, one is reality and the other fantasy. Ecological despoilation is a real thing, so they are not equivalent.

 

[1213]

If such a flood had happened, it would have required an extra billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth.

Not, if understood correctly how it happened.

It would have left a geological flood layer all over all continents and island and the ocean floor. It would have caused a genetic bottleneck in all species of land animal, all the bottlenecks dating to the date of the flood layer.

I don't think humans have the ability to date the evidence correctly.

But we find nothing of the kind. If you want to argue that flood is real, show me real evidence of scientific quality that demonstrates your claim.

1) Modern continents, the parts of the broken single original continent.
2) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material mixed up in the flood sediments.
3) Orogenic mountains, the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken.
4) Great glaciers, the result of cooling climate after the long rainy and cloudy period and death of everything on dry land.
5) The stories of it, in many cultures.
6) The bottleneck in human genome.

The story is found in Sumerian Mesopotamia as early as 3500 BCE. two thousand years before the bible god appears in history..

Even if it is true that the story appeared at that time in Mesopotamia, it does not mean the story didn't exist with the ancestors of Jews before that. And I have no reason to believe Bible God appeared only 2000 years later.

Funny that you don't read what your bible says. The books of the Tanakh, up to Isaiah, freely acknowledge the existence of other gods. The Decalogue says "You shall have no other gods before me," for instance ─ it doesn't say, There ain't no other gods. Here are some others so you can check it out for yourself ─

It seems to me that you don't understand what I say. In Biblical point of view other gods exists, but they are not true Gods, which is why it can be said, there is no other God, but there are many things that are called gods.

Once again I can tell by your answer that you didn't do any homework. Here's a piece about genetic bottlenecks so you'll now understand what the problem is for those asserting the reality of the Genesis flood:>Population bottleneck - Wikipedia<

It says: "Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population", which means it doesn't necessary happen. And the main problem with it is, how could you detect the reduction? If you have nothing to compare, it is not possible to tell did it happen.

Nope, you're not a flat earth as the authors of the bible believed.

Sorry, I don't accept baseless claims.

...The continents began to form into roughly their present shapes and positions maybe some 200 million years ago...

Sorry, I don't believe that.

As I mentioned, humans are maybe 200,000 years old, gods are likely to be at the least 10,000 years old, the gods of Sumer and Egypt had names and histories not later than the 3rd millennium BCE, and the god of the bible appears on the scene around 1500 BCE. As to your remark, if you have evidence of the bible god in history or archaeology before around 1500 BCE, please refer me to the historical or archaeological papers that support your claim.

Not having evidence of something, doesn't necessary mean it didn't exist. OR what do you say, if humans have existed over 200,000 years, why no evidence of human culture from all of that time? Why it seems people have developed cultural things only about 10,000, years? Why all what happened in this late 10,000 years didn't happen already 190,000 years ago?

 

[1213]

which ignores the simple fact that the continents are all in motion now.

I have no good reason to believe they are in motion.

 

[1213]

Even Answers in Genesis has admitted that. And I gave you a good reason. **mod edit**

I asked a good reason. I don't think you gave a good reason.

Now as to your new claim, how could continents sink?

The same way as a rock sinks, if it is not supported by anything.

 

[1213]

...The very absence of an expected flood layer whose existence based on our knowledge of flooding is the most intelligent reason...

There is no intelligent reason to expect similar flood layer as in a local small flood.

If all floods leave layers and the evidence supports this, why would the greatest flood ever leave no evidence?

It left vast amount of evidence:
1) Modern continents, the parts of the broken single original continent.
2) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material mixed up in the flood sediments.
3) Orogenic mountains, the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken.
4) Great glaciers, the result of cooling climate after the long rainy and cloudy period and death of everything on dry land.
5) The stories of it, in many cultures.

A bottleneck would exist and be evident. It does not exist.

By what I know, bottlenecks exists. The problem is only in how they are dated. I think the existence of bottlenecks are just wrongly dated and support the flood.

why the story must be believed as a fact.

I don't think you must believe it. I think you should understand it happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no intelligent reason to expect similar flood layer as in a local small flood.

We don't. That is the mistake that creationists make.

It left vast amount of evidence:

I doubt if you even understand the concept of evidence.

1) Modern continents, the parts of the broken single original continent.

Yes, and we know when they broke up by the evidence that this left behind. Remember "evidence"? That is the concept that you do not understand.

2) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material mixed up in the flood sediments.

Again, see above.

3) Orogenic mountains, the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken.

We know how mountains grew, see abive.

4) Great glaciers, the result of cooling climate after the long rainy and cloudy period and death of everything on dry land.
5) The stories of it, in many cultures.

By what I know, bottlenecks exists. The problem is only in how they are dated. I think the existence of bottlenecks are just wrongly dated and support the flood.

But you are quite wrong in all of your claims. For example the genetic bottlenecks that the flood myth predicts do not exist.

Okay, let's start with evidence. Scientific evidence is the standard that one uses for scientific questions. And scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific hypothesis or theory. So, what is your hypothesis of the flood and what observation could possibly refute it?

I don't think you must believe it. I think you should understand it happened.