Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[YoursTrue]

And once again I ask you explain how the Earth being mostly a water covered planet with little land 3.24 MILLION years ago is evidence for a world wide flood 5-6 thousand years ago...

I mean, you have to go back millions of years to a claim that the Earth MIGHT have been ....

which has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged world wide flood that allegedly happened 5-6 thousand years ago.

You seem to be grasping at straws...

I am speaking only of the amount of water the Earth had. No straws, just water. Scientists say the earth was completely covered with water long ago...many many many years ago.

 

[River Sea]

A boat that is impossible to build.

People make boats with reeds here

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala was the boat that Noah Vaivaswat went into made with reeds in 7 days?

God told Noah that He will bring rains after seven days. Noah
should make a boat and get into it when the flood came

Similarly, the Fish Incarnation told Vaivaswat Manu:

Both the narratives tell that a flood would come after seven
days; and that the Prophet should get into a boat with seeds of
all the creatures.

What does that mean seeds of all creatures?

The Flood-prone Area of Jalore
We locate the Flood at Jalore in South Rajasthan. The area is
flood-prone even today.

The Sanskrit root “nau” means
ship, boat or vessel

The fish pulled the boat to safety of Himalaya Mountain - how did the fish pull the boat?

A boat
came and Vaivaswat Manu got into it. The fish pulled the boat to
safety of Mount Abu

The Meena Community believes it
has descended from this Manu

People make boats with reeds here

Arrow showing where boat went to

 

[YoursTrue]

The part of releasing a bird on each of the 3 days comes from both the Epic of Atrahasis (tablet 3) & Epic of Gilgamesh (tablet 11 of the Standard Version found at the Library of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh). The bird event was most likely to have happened at the Eridu Genesis too, but portion of the tablet is missing.

but with regards to sacrificing to the gods, where the smell of burnt offerings were “sweet to the gods”, and where the gods promised never to send such flood again, also bear strikingly similarities to Noah’s sacrifice & God‘s promise (Genesis 8:20-22).

That the Israelites had no Genesis, no Creation and Flood stories until their sojourn (exiled) in Babylon, tell us that the Mesopotamian myths are definitely older than the Hebrew myths, as the story of Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Utnapishtim have about 2000 years history prior to Genesis was composed in the 6th century BCE.

The fact is that it is said the dove brought back a leaf. And I have read by those familiar with flooding that branches could float on the water. It would not be untoward that as the waters receded a branch could successfully implant itself and grow in the fertile SEDIMENT or soil towards the top of a mountain.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is caused by the movement of plates whereas ridges often get elevated because one plate goes under the other, and this is happening all over the world.

BTW, the sharper the points of the peaks are typically indicative of newer mountains, so that the Rocky Mountains are younger than the Great Smokies.

Nevertheless, scientists do say that the earth was completely covered with water. Of course they go into detail about what they think happened, but I leave that up to you now to investigate if you want to.

 

[YoursTrue]

And once again I ask you explain how the Earth being mostly a water covered planet with little land 3.24 MILLION years ago is evidence for a world wide flood 5-6 thousand years ago...

I mean, you have to go back millions of years to a claim that the Earth MIGHT have been ....

which has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged world wide flood that allegedly happened 5-6 thousand years ago.

You seem to be grasping at straws...

MIGHT have been, you say? that's interesting. Yes, scientists say the earth was completely covered with water in the far distant past. This has to do with the fact that the Earth still has plenty of water, within and without and in the sky. Yup, it does. Now whether you agree with it or not about the plentitude of water now and before continents appeared, that's up to you. It relates to the discussion whether you see it or not. (Have a good one...)

 

[metis]

Nevertheless, scientists do say that the earth was completely covered with water. Of course they go into detail about what they think happened, but I leave that up to you now to investigate if you want to.

I did, and what happened 3 billion years ago has literally nothing to do with the Flood narrative. Remember the ark did end up on land at the end of 40 days.

 

[YoursTrue]

I did, and what happened 3 billion years ago has literally nothing to do with the Flood narrative. Remember the ark did end up on land at the end of 40 days.

I was particularly speaking of water. Many argued there is not enough water to flood the entire earth and then began telling me water under the earth's surface wasn't enough either although the Genesis account brings out amazingly enough about water deep in the earth too. Without going too deep now into it I found out scientists believe that the earth was entirely covered by water before land appeared. There was and I believe is plenty of water one way or another.

 

[danieldemol]

The fact is that it is said the dove brought back a leaf. And I have read by those familiar with flooding that branches could float on the water. It would not be untoward that as the waters receded a branch could successfully implant itself and grow in the fertile SEDIMENT or soil towards the top of a mountain.

If branches were floating about in the water for all 40 days why did it take the bird 40 days to find a leaf according to the story? Had noah wanted a leaf for some purpose he could have sent the bird out to get one of the many floating leaves right from day 1.

 

[shunyadragon]

People make boats with reeds here

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala was the boat that Noah Vaivaswat went into made with reeds in 7 days?

God told Noah that He will bring rains after seven days. Noah
should make a boat and get into it when the flood came

Similarly, the Fish Incarnation told Vaivaswat Manu:

Both the narratives tell that a flood would come after seven
days; and that the Prophet should get into a boat with seeds of
all the creatures.

What does that mean seeds of all creatures?

The Flood-prone Area of Jalore
We locate the Flood at Jalore in South Rajasthan. The area is
flood-prone even today.

The Sanskrit root “nau” means
ship, boat or vessel

The fish pulled the boat to safety of Himalaya Mountain - how did the fish pull the boat?

A boat
came and Vaivaswat Manu got into it. The fish pulled the boat to
safety of Mount Abu

The Meena Community believes it
has descended from this Manu

People make boats with reeds here

Arrow showing where boat went to
View attachment 82326

The rock formation dishonestly identified as Noah's boat is indeed a natural rock formation.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was particularly speaking of water. Many argued there is not enough water to flood the entire earth and then began telling me water under the earth's surface wasn't enough either although the Genesis account brings out amazingly enough about water deep in the earth too. Without going too deep now into it I found out scientists believe that the earth was entirely covered by water before land appeared. There was and I believe is plenty of water one way or another.

I described geologically that at the time land was very flat and the seas shallow and yes, there was enough water to cover the land. Today with continental drift there are very deep ocean trenches and high mountains and it is impossible for the oceans to cover the land in several billion years..

 

[gnostic]

And your statement, “the science of abiogenesis”….
There is no science for it. It is effectively unfalsifiable, negating any usefulness to real science.

The Miller-Urey experiment, often touted as evidence for abiogenesis, is like saying nails are evidence for mansions.

When are you going to recognize that your belief in abiogenesis, is based on faith?

You uses the words, but clearly you don’t understand what they actually means, and you used them incorrectly, Hockeycowboy.

For instance, you say Abiogenesis is “unfalsifiable”. Wrong.

It is only unfalsifiable if you cannot test the explanation & the predictions that go with that explanation.

If you can perform experiments or if you can find evidence, then the explanation plus predictions in the hypothesis is “falsifiable“. For you to claim Abiogenesis is “unfalsifiable”, would mean your assertion is wrong.

One of the premises in Abiogenesis is that inorganic chemicals can form into organic matters, via chemical reaction.

The Miller-Urey experiment managed to achieve such chemical reaction, and get organic compounds - 11 amino acids were identified In 1952. Those samples were stored away in vials, until after Stanley Miller’s death in 2007. The original samples continued to change, that 9 more amino acids were identified.

But M-U experiment isn’t the only experiment. Other scientists over the decades that followed, have also performed experiments, using different inorganic chemicals and using different techniques, some have made amino acids, and Joan Oró (1961) has managed to produce adenine, a nucleobase molecule, one of the 5 molecules that exist in RNA and in DNA, using hydrogen cyanide, water & ammonia.

These experiments showed that Abiogenesis is a working hypothesis, meaning the hypothesis is falsifiable.

But there other evidence where organic matters can exist naturally in certain environments - outside of labs. Such as those found in large carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, eg the Allende meteorite (1969, Mexico), the Murchison meteorite (1969, Australia), NWA 801 (stands for Northwest Africa 801, discovered in Morocco, 2001).

Not only amino acids were found in all 3 meteorites mentioned above. Other organic molecules were identified, including sugars, such as pentose (5-carbon sugar), more specifically ribose, were identified in Murchison meteorite. Ribose is one of the important molecules that are building block of RNA.

some nucleobase molecules have also found to exist in meteorites, eg adenine, guanine & uracil.

you needs to understand the importance of meteors, as they along with asteroids, were formed during the early stage of the formation of the Solar System. That meteorites such as Allende & NWA 801 (both about 4.56 billion years old) are slightly older than the oldest rocks on Earth, tell us these meteorites were together with the Sun and planets. Murchison on the other hand, predated the Solar System by another 2 billion years.

please note, that I am talking about “organic matters”, organic “molecules” or “compounds”, not living organisms.

The evi found in each meteorites, indicated that organic matters can exist in extraterrestrial objects (eg meteors, asteroids, comets). Hence, Abiogenesis in regards to extraterrestrial origins is another possibility , hence abiogenesis is falsifiable.

clearly, you don’t understand what they mean by falsifiable and unfalsifiable.

 

[YoursTrue]

You uses the words, but clearly you don’t understand what they actually means, and you used them incorrectly, Hockeycowboy.

For instance, you say Abiogenesis is “unfalsifiable”. Wrong.

It is only unfalsifiable if you cannot test the explanation & the predictions that go with that explanation.

If you can perform experiments or if you can find evidence, then the explanation plus predictions in the hypothesis is “falsifiable“. For you to claim Abiogenesis is “unfalsifiable”, would mean your assertion is wrong.

One of the premises in Abiogenesis is that inorganic chemicals can form into organic matters, via chemical reaction.

The Miller-Urey experiment managed to achieve such chemical reaction, and get organic compounds - 11 amino acids were identified In 1952. Those samples were stored away in vials, until after Stanley Miller’s death in 2007. The original samples continued to change, that 9 more amino acids were identified.

But M-U experiment isn’t the only experiment. Other scientists over the decades that followed, have also performed experiments, using different inorganic chemicals and using different techniques, some have made amino acids, and Joan Oró (1961) has managed to produce adenine, a nucleobase molecule, one of the 5 molecules that exist in RNA and in DNA, using hydrogen cyanide, water & ammonia.

These experiments showed that Abiogenesis is a working hypothesis, meaning the hypothesis is falsifiable.

But there other evidence where organic matters can exist naturally in certain environments - outside of labs. Such as those found in large carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, eg the Allende meteorite (1969, Mexico), the Murchison meteorite (1969, Australia), NWA 801 (stands for Northwest Africa 801, discovered in Morocco, 2001).

Not only amino acids were found in all 3 meteorites mentioned above. Other organic molecules were identified, including sugars, such as pentose (5-carbon sugar), more specifically ribose, were identified in Murchison meteorite. Ribose is one of the important molecules that are building block of RNA.

some nucleobase molecules have also found to exist in meteorites, eg adenine, guanine & uracil.

you needs to understand the importance of meteors, as they along with asteroids, were formed during the early stage of the formation of the Solar System. That meteorites such as Allende & NWA 801 (both about 4.56 billion years old) are slightly older than the oldest rocks on Earth, tell us these meteorites were together with the Sun and planets. Murchison on the other hand, predated the Solar System by another 2 billion years.

please note, that I am talking about “organic matters”, organic “molecules” or “compounds”, not living organisms.

The evi found in each meteorites, indicated that organic matters can exist in extraterrestrial objects (eg meteors, asteroids, comets). Hence, Abiogenesis in regards to extraterrestrial origins is another possibility , hence abiogenesis is falsifiable.

clearly, you don’t understand what they mean by falsifiable and unfalsifiable.

The Miller Urey experiment was a contrived experiment, obviously needing testtubes and electricity for starters.

 

[YoursTrue]

You uses the words, but clearly you don’t understand what they actually means, and you used them incorrectly, Hockeycowboy.

For instance, you say Abiogenesis is “unfalsifiable”. Wrong.

It is only unfalsifiable if you cannot test the explanation & the predictions that go with that explanation.

If you can perform experiments or if you can find evidence, then the explanation plus predictions in the hypothesis is “falsifiable“. For you to claim Abiogenesis is “unfalsifiable”, would mean your assertion is wrong.

One of the premises in Abiogenesis is that inorganic chemicals can form into organic matters, via chemical reaction.

The Miller-Urey experiment managed to achieve such chemical reaction, and get organic compounds - 11 amino acids were identified In 1952. Those samples were stored away in vials, until after Stanley Miller’s death in 2007. The original samples continued to change, that 9 more amino acids were identified.

But M-U experiment isn’t the only experiment. Other scientists over the decades that followed, have also performed experiments, using different inorganic chemicals and using different techniques, some have made amino acids, and Joan Oró (1961) has managed to produce adenine, a nucleobase molecule, one of the 5 molecules that exist in RNA and in DNA, using hydrogen cyanide, water & ammonia.

These experiments showed that Abiogenesis is a working hypothesis, meaning the hypothesis is falsifiable.

But there other evidence where organic matters can exist naturally in certain environments - outside of labs. Such as those found in large carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, eg the Allende meteorite (1969, Mexico), the Murchison meteorite (1969, Australia), NWA 801 (stands for Northwest Africa 801, discovered in Morocco, 2001).

Not only amino acids were found in all 3 meteorites mentioned above. Other organic molecules were identified, including sugars, such as pentose (5-carbon sugar), more specifically ribose, were identified in Murchison meteorite. Ribose is one of the important molecules that are building block of RNA.

some nucleobase molecules have also found to exist in meteorites, eg adenine, guanine & uracil.

you needs to understand the importance of meteors, as they along with asteroids, were formed during the early stage of the formation of the Solar System. That meteorites such as Allende & NWA 801 (both about 4.56 billion years old) are slightly older than the oldest rocks on Earth, tell us these meteorites were together with the Sun and planets. Murchison on the other hand, predated the Solar System by another 2 billion years.

please note, that I am talking about “organic matters”, organic “molecules” or “compounds”, not living organisms.

The evi found in each meteorites, indicated that organic matters can exist in extraterrestrial objects (eg meteors, asteroids, comets). Hence, Abiogenesis in regards to extraterrestrial origins is another possibility , hence abiogenesis is falsifiable.

clearly, you don’t understand what they mean by falsifiable and unfalsifiable.

That organic samples continued to change over time in no way justifies the concept of abiogenesis. Leading of course, as the theory goes, to the theory of evolution . Further, if you believe that the experiment showing change of chemicals over time leading to more chemicals leading to the theory of evolution, you are unwittingly supporting the purported claim of abiogenesis as necessary to continue the evolution process. There's no way out.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Miller Urey experiment was a contrived experiment, obviously needing testtubes and electricity for starters.

Your intentional ignorance of science is profound.

 

[shunyadragon]

That organic samples continued to change over time in no way justifies the concept of abiogenesis. Leading of course, as the theory goes, to the theory of evolution . Further, if you believe that the experiment showing change of chemicals over time leading to more chemicals leading to the theory of evolution, you are unwittingly supporting the purported claim of abiogenesis as necessary to continue the evolution process. There's no way out.

There is apparently 'no way out' for you from the prison of your ancient tribal agenda

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My statement,

[Abiogenesis] is effectively unfalsifiable, negating any usefulness to real science.

was met with these responses:

Your intentional ignorance of science is abominable, based on an ancient tribal agenda..

&

False

Apparently, you both aren’t aware of what one of your own beloved ‘science gods’ says…

“The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path (of Origin Of Life) from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.

Given that awkward reality, the focus of OOL research needs to remain on the ahistoric aspects — ….”

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, own up to the fact that your hope in it, is based on faith.

And IMO, misplaced.

 

[shunyadragon]

My statement,

was met with these responses:

No, you have not met any responses with science. Your profound intentional ignorance of science continues based on your ancient tribal agenda.

&

Apparently, you both aren’t aware of what one of your own beloved ‘science gods’ says…

Quote mining for misrepresenting one article does not help your case.

Nothing to do with actual proposals nor results of research concerning abiogenesis research in science. Not qualified as referenced.

“The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path (of Origin Of Life) from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.

Given that awkward reality, the focus of OOL research needs to remain on the ahistoric aspects — ….”

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, own up to the fact that your hope in it, is based on faith.

And IMO, misplaced.

Neither of these authors lists their qualifications as a PhD. Need more qualified authors to justify any response. Preferably articles from peer-reviewed journals on the subjects related to Abiogenesis, not NIH. There is a problem with NIH publishing this article.

Purpose of NIH: Since 1946, federal funding of civilian scientists in biomedical research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been guided by expert review by scientific peers.

This article does not propose or report any research related to the NIH purpose and goals. It also does not report nor propose any goal-oriented research related to abiogenesis. All it does is express an 'opinion; concerning abiogenesis.

Fortunately, NIH has a disclosure here as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My statement,

was met with these responses:


&

Apparently, you both aren’t aware of what one of your own beloved ‘science gods’ says…

“The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path (of Origin Of Life) from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.

Given that awkward reality, the focus of OOL research needs to remain on the ahistoric aspects — ….”

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, own up to the fact that your hope in it, is based on faith.

And IMO, misplaced.

The reason that you were wrong is because you posted as if there was one overarching version of "abiogenesis". That is not the case right now. It is still in the hypothetical stage. It has been broken down into various areas and all of those areas that have well developed hypotheses are falsifiable.

But I can think of a case that would refute abiogenesis. It seems that you think that magic poofing is a possibility So if one had a lab set up where there were there was no life, and identifiable life appeared without any precursors that would refute abiogenesis. Abiogenesis says that life had to arise in a at least somewhat orderly fashion from nonlife. Life arising in some other unknown fashion, such as magic poofing, would refue it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My statement,

was met with these responses:


&

Apparently, you both aren’t aware of what one of your own beloved ‘science gods’ says…

“The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path (of Origin Of Life) from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.

Given that awkward reality, the focus of OOL research needs to remain on the ahistoric aspects — ….”

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, own up to the fact that your hope in it, is based on faith.

And IMO, misplaced.

The reason that you were wrong is because you posted as if there was one overarching version of "abiogenesis". That is not the case right now. It is still in the hypothetical stage. It has been broken down into various areas and all of those areas that have well developed hypotheses are falsifiable.

But I can think of a case that would refute abiogenesis. It seems that you think that magic poofing is a possibility So if one had a lab set up where there were there was no life, and identifiable life appeared without any precursors that would refute abiogenesis. Abiogenesis says that life had to arise in a at least somewhat orderly fashion from nonlife. Life arising in some other unknown fashion, such as magic poofing, would refue it.

My statement,

was met with these responses:


&

Apparently, you both aren’t aware of what one of your own beloved ‘science gods’ says…

“The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path (of Origin Of Life) from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.

Given that awkward reality, the focus of OOL research needs to remain on the ahistoric aspects — ….”

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, own up to the fact that your hope in it, is based on faith.

And IMO, misplaced.

No, it is not base on faith. Where did you get that insane idea from? That paper did not go over any of the specifics. It only gave an overview. It is not even a proper peer reviewed paper. It may have been published in a peer reviewed journal, but it has no research in it. Quoting terms that you did not understand out of context does not help you either.

Let he help you with one part of it. Let's jump to the conclusion that has the term that you did not understand:

"In conclusion, it seems probably that we will never know the precise historic path by which life on the Earth emerged, but, very much in the Darwinian tradition, it seems we can now specify the essence of the ahistoric principles by which that process came about. "

Let me interpret this for you. As we learn more about how abiogenesis almost certainly occurred, we can see that it would have followed many of the same principals as evolution. I could probably dig up some papers on that for you, but you would probably ignore them or misinterpret them. But lets go on. It says that we will probably never know the precise historic path" <my bolding, their italics>"by which that process came about."

Okay, what does that mean? It means that we know from the evidence that life almost certainly arose naturally because there as of right now almost all of the steps have been solved. Some have not. But if you remember all of the "abiogenesis couldn't have happened because of . . . " those problems have been solved. But why can't we know the precise path? Because when they solved some of those problems they found more than one way that they could have been solved. So if you ask "How did they solve the of the racemic nature of nucleic acids when they form naturally" It turns out that there is more than one solution and they could have occurred in different steps of the process. It is on the order of determining the exact path that someone took in crossing a city with a grid layout of streets when one started at the Northeast corner and went down to the southwest corner. There could be countless possible paths, but we can be very sure that the person did not sprout wings and fly.

So we know most of the answers to how it would have happened. We have evidence for most of the steps. So it is not a faith based belief.

You on the other hand have a belief that is not supported by any reliable evidence at all. Worse yet, many of your beliefs are refuted by the existing evidence. You not only have a faith based belief. You have to deny reality to maintain it.

 

[YoursTrue]

The reason that you were wrong is because you posted as if there was one overarching version of "abiogenesis". That is not the case right now. It is still in the hypothetical stage. It has been broken down into various areas and all of those areas that have well developed hypotheses are falsifiable.

But I can think of a case that would refute abiogenesis. It seems that you think that magic poofing is a possibility So if one had a lab set up where there were there was no life, and identifiable life appeared without any precursors that would refute abiogenesis. Abiogenesis says that life had to arise in a at least somewhat orderly fashion from nonlife. Life arising in some other unknown fashion, such as magic poofing, would refue it.

In the hypothetical stage? LOLOL, sorry, I laugh easily..sometimes...