How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Subduction Zone]

I already got educated by you remember. Coming to this thread has given me the same result. Zero plus zero is still zero.

Perhaps if you could clearly state what you wish to learn?

 

[nPeace]

He was rude from the start, though I do admit that he did state what he believed.

Did you note my one assumption? That God cannot lie if he exists. All of the events that he claimed would have happened would have left massive evidence. That alone disproves his beliefs. Before you make the same sort of logical errors as he has:

Lack of evidence can be evidence against. If an event is expected to leave clear cut evidence the lack of that evidence tells us that the event did not happen. If a friend called and said a giant herd of buffaloes just stampeded through his kitchen and you ran over to his house and it was pristine would you deduct that he was telling the truth or not?

Rude from the start? I see no rudeness here. Did I miss one of his posts?

We do have evidence. I'm not responsible for those who shut their eyes.

Yet you believe that a massive cloud of dust came out of nowhere, and did a dance together to form our solar system. And you have clear cut evidence for that. And we believe in myths that were written by testimony from firsthand observers.
If I've gotten nothing else from this thread, at least I get the thrill of being amused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rude from the start? I see no rudeness here. Did I miss one of his posts?

If you are blind I can't help you.

We do have evidence. I'm not responsible for those who shut their eyes.

No, you really don't. But let's make this simple. You have no scientific evidence.

Yet you believe that a massive cloud of dust came out of nowhere, and did a dance together to form our solar system. And you have clear cut evidence for that. And we believe in myths that were written by testimony from firsthand observers.
If I've gotten nothing else from this thread, at least I get the thrill of being amused.

And this is ignorance and arrogance. That is always rude. When you do not understand something the proper action to take is to ask people how they know something. This goes a long way to explain your earlier blindness. And there is no reason to believe that any of your myths were written by first hand observers. Not even the Gospels qualify that way.

 

[Rise]

Actually that is a bit cherry picked. A better definition is saying that someone is wrong because they are an @#$@ (pick your own insult)

Wrong. I gave you the proper definition:

------------------
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself"
-----------------

Ad hominem is when you attack the person as a way of avoiding dealing with the substance of their argument.
You have both repeatedly avoided dealing with the substance of my points while attacking me. This makes you guilty of a textbook ad hominem.

And that is just a claim and not an argument.

I argued why I was right to conclude what I did based on your original post.

You claim I was wrong. Well, now the onus is on you to prove your claim true that I misread or misunderstood your original post's promise to prove why our beliefs about the flood were not true.

Correct,

What's correct? Are you now saying I was correct in what I concluded about your original post?

You really need to be more clear about what you're referring to in your posts.

and one assumption in a discussion is that one's opponent is going to be .... honest.

You have just made another positive assertion that the onus is on you to back up with proof.
Show by fact, reason, and logic, why anything I said was dishonest. You won't be able to because I haven't been dishonest.

and one assumption in a discussion is that one's opponent is going to be polite and....You failed right off the bat.

You never stipulated in your original post that meeting your personal perception of politeness was a prerequisite to your fulfilling your promise.
However, you would have been free of committing logical fallacies if you had simply said you didn't want to respond because you were too offended to.
What you absolutely can't justify is the fact that you made several claims you refused to support, and then went on to commit nearly half a dozen logical fallacies trying to defend your unproven claims.

And another false claim. You should never say that someone presumed something if you do not know better.

So you're saying you don't presume that the ice caps were here before the flood?
Because that's the only way what I said could be false.

Again, you have to stop committing the fallacy of argument by assertion. It's not a false claim just because you claim it is. You have to logically prove why it is a false claim.

Nor did you answer my question.

Your answer is right here:
You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood.

I'm still waiting for you to deal with the points I made in a logical way.

And you confirm my earlier claim that you do not understand logical fallacies. I have found that when people that are rude like you are that they very rarely respond to logic and evidence.

This is an ironic thing for your to say, considering so far you're the only one committing logical fallacies and you steadfastly refuse to back up any of your claims with either logic or evidence.

You also commit two more logical fallacies with that quote.

1. Argument by assertion. Just because you say I don't understand logical fallacies doesn't make it true. You have not proved that I have misused any logical fallacy. Yet, ironically, you have shown us that you did not know the true definition of Ad Hominem or tone policing fallacies.
2. Ad Hominem. Rather than deal with the points I raised logically, you divert from that by continuing to attack me personally.

Sorry, you don't get to make up your own poorly based fallacies.

All of the fallacies I've cited are commonly recognized and not my own creation. By accusing me of making them up, you continue to demonstrate you are the one who doesn't understand what logical fallacies are.

I will attack tone. I have not attacked you.

As I already pointed out, that's called the logical fallacy of tone policing.

Being unable to deal with the points I raised in a logical way, you divert from the real argument in order to attack what you perceive my tone to be.

One more time, would you care to try to argue politely and properly?

Logical fallacy, tone policing.

---------------------

Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.

In Bailey Poland's book, Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online, she suggests that tone policing is frequently aimed at women[1] and attempts to derail or silence opponents who may be lower on the "privilege ladder".
In changing their tactics to criticizing how the women spoke instead of what the women said, the men created an environment in which the outcome of a dispute was not decided on the merits of an argument but on whether the men chose to engage with the arguments in good faith.[1]

------------

Your perceptions about my tone has nothing to do with proving your claims true or disproving my claims. And since you choose to focus only on that at the expense of actual points, you are diverting from the real argument and guilty of the tone policing fallacy.

 

[74x12]

Neither did your version of God. Do you remember the one assumption that I said that I made? If there is a God he can't lie. Events like you propose would leave evidence The lack of such evidence tells us that it did not happen.



Not on the surface where it is needed. So another fail.



And remember the assumption that God does not lie. If you want to claim that God lies then one can't disprove the flood.

I will probably answer your points tomorrow. I'm getting tired. Good night!

 

[oldbadger]

There are many different interpretations of the Noah's Ark myth in Genesis. From my experience all of them can be shown to have never occurred. My only assumption here will be that it God exists he does not lie.

Of course I can't demonstrate a concept to be in error until people clearly state their beliefs. So please tell us what you mean by the Floor and we can discuss your version.

You start a thread titled:-
How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

......... and then you don't tell us?
I thought I was going to read something enlightening.......... oh well.

 

[nPeace]

Correct, and one assumption in a discussion is that one's opponent is going to be polite and honest. You failed right off the bat.



Actually that is a bit cherry picked. A better definition is saying that someone is wrong because they are an @#$@ (pick your own insult) You were rude. You are ignorant. Those are observed facts. i never said that you were wrong because of those fact.



And that is just a claim and not an argument.



And another false claim. You should never say that someone presumed something if you do not know better. Nor did you answer my question. Once again, I asked you a question rudely because you were rude.



And you confirm my earlier claim that you do not understand logical fallacies. I have found that when people that are rude like you are that they very rarely respond to logic and evidence. I am merely saying that being polite goes a long way.


Sorry, you don't get to make up your own poorly based fallacies. I will attack tone. I have not attacked you.

One more time, would you care to try to argue politely and properly?

Why don't you just forget about any personal slight, and just deal with what he presented. After all, we're all adults here... right?
Fighting about words will get us nowhere.

Okay. make your rule book, and I'll play by them.
Where do you want me to start?

If I start here is this a violation?
Genesis 7 American Standard Version (ASV)
7 And Jehovah said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female: 3 of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

 

[Misunderstood]

Hello gnostic and Bob the Unbeliever,

Thank you both for responding to me, I find it an honor that you would even feel that what I said would be worth you effort and time to answer me. You both have similar responses to my post so I would like to answer them together but it is getting late and I am tired and I need to work tomorrow, so I will try to get back to you later.

Thanks so much.

You have of “ice core” samples, haven’t you?

They drill out ice, and like people who do the tree rings or study the rock strata for dating purposes, the same could be done with ice cores.

Scientists who specialised in these research, can determine if annual amount of specific gases in the atmosphere, before another layers of ice covered it; these gases get trapped between layers. They can also determine if there were heavy rains in the past or not. They can also determine if the specific layer of ice is the result of sea water or from snowfalls.

The last I have heard, the oldest date they found from the ice core the Antarctica, is 1.5 million years. I don’t know if this record being broken or not.

Did you know the similar sort of method can be done with archaeological sites.

A lot of ancient cities in the Middle East, were built on top of even older settlements.

Sometimes a city would lay abandoned for hundreds of years (possibly due to famine, or trades drying up, for examples), before new population build another on top of the older one. They can also determine if some parts or the entire were destroyed by lava, by earthquake, by fire, by flood water, or by wars. Each one of these possibilities will give different evidences as to what happen to particular layer of settlement.

Jericho for instance, have at least 20 different settlements, all built one settlement on top of older settlement, and the oldest one was dated back to the start of the Neolithic period in Levant, 11,500 years ago.

But getting back to my ice core example.

Had their been a global flood, if the ice were destroyed by the water, it still would have left sign that such a Flood happened some times during the 3rd millennium BCE (to be more precise, between 2500 and 2100 BCE) if you want it to coincide with Noah’s Flood. But there are no evidence that such Flood happened in the ice core.

Impossible. To re-shape the face of the earth from mostly-flat, to the modern mountains?

Would release enough energy to melt the planet, if it took place in the few short years your narrative requires.

Since the planet shows no evidence of having been melted, subsequent to a global flood?

Your hypothesis fails. The earth was not a featureless cueball prior to the mythical flood.

 

[Valjean]

What do you mean? What exactly are you referring to?

The mountain. People have described it for thousands of years. No sudden changes are described.
Things can be dated, growth rates and rates of change can be calculated. We can learn the history of the mountain by dating rocks, strata, moraines &c. We can examine phytoliths, growth rings, pollen, human and animal artifacts on the mountain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. I gave you the proper definition:

------------------
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself"
-----------------

Ad hominem is when you attack the person as a way of avoiding dealing with the substance of their argument.
You have both repeatedly avoided dealing with the substance of my points while attacking me. This makes you guilty of a textbook ad hominem.

You are making two separate errors here. First what you are describing is an ad hominem, an attack against a person, not an ad hominem fallacy. That is when you take an ad hominem and try to claim that because of that that the person is wrong.

Now I did not attack you. You may be oversensitive about your ignorance, but that was not an attack. Nor did I say that you were wrong because you were ignorant. So that is a failure on both parts. This link may help:



Ad Hominem (Abusive)

I argued why I was right to conclude what I did based on your original post.

You claim I was wrong. Well, now the onus is on you to prove your claim true that I misread or misunderstood your original post's promise to prove why our beliefs about the flood were not true.

And that was a weak argument on your part. And I even offered to go into more depth on the refutation if you could argue properly. Again, with rude and arrogant people it is a waste of time to give them answers. I need to know that I am not wasting my time.

What's correct? Are you now saying I was correct in what I concluded about your original post?

You really need to be more clear about what you're referring to in your posts.

Oh my, so reading comprehension may be a problem as well. That happens at times when people rudely blow up posts.

You have just made another positive assertion that the onus is on you to back up with proof.
Show by fact, reason, and logic, why anything I said was dishonest. You won't be able to because I haven't been dishonest.

No problem. you just showed a classic dishonest debating tactic, quoting out of context. The full phrase, that you edited, was "polite and honest" Not even a full sentence. Once again: Excessive blowing up of posts is rude and arrogant. It is not a proper debating technique. At least you seem to realize that you have not been polite.

You never stipulated in your original post that meeting your personal perception of politeness was a prerequisite to your fulfilling your promise.
However, you would have been free of committing logical fallacies if you had simply said you didn't want to respond because you were too offended to.
What you absolutely can't justify is the fact that you made several claims you refused to support, and then went on to commit nearly half a dozen logical fallacies trying to defend your unproven claims.

One does not have to. And it is within the rules of the forum. And you have yet to find one logical fallacy. Let's try to keep the false claims to a minimum.

So you're saying you don't presume that the ice caps were here before the flood?
Because that's the only way what I said could be false.

You don't even see the error that you keep making. I made no presumption. It appears that you do that quite often. You should not assume that others make the same errors that you do.

Again, you have to stop committing the fallacy of argument by assertion. It's not a false claim just because you claim it is. You have to logically prove why it is a false claim.

No such fallacy, and it is only a reaction to your rudeness. If you want a full answer you need to be a bit more polite. And no, your rudeness threw such rules out the window. The first rule in a discussion is that both sides need to be polite.

Your answer is right here:
You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood.

I'm still waiting for you to deal with the points I made in a logical way.

That is not a point. It is an ignorant claim. Once again you need to learn the difference. If you can be polite I will gladly tell you how we now that they did not form right after the flood.

This is an ironic thing for your to say, considering so far you're the only one committing logical fallacies and you steadfastly refuse to back up any of your claims with either logic or evidence.

You also commit two more logical fallacies with that quote.

1. Argument by assertion. Just because you say I don't understand logical fallacies doesn't make it true. You have not proved that I have misused any logical fallacy. Yet, ironically, you have shown us that you did not know the true definition of Ad Hominem or tone policing fallacies.
2. Ad Hominem. Rather than deal with the points I raised logically, you divert from that by continuing to attack me personally.

1. It is not "just because I say". This question has been already answered to some degree earlier in the thread. I have offered to go into detail with a condition. That is not "not just because I say"

2. No ad homs committed. You could not even identify one. You merely dislike the facts that I mentioned. Nor did I say that you were wrong due to your ignorance. Again a double failure of yours.

All of the fallacies I've cited are commonly recognized, and not my own creation. You continue to demonstrate you are the one who doesn't understand what logical fallacies are.



As I already pointed out, that's called the logical fallacy of tone policing.

Being unable to deal with the points I raised in a logical way, you divert from the real argument in order to attack what you perceive my tone to be.



Logical fallacy, tone policing.

---------------------

Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.

In Bailey Poland's book, Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online, she suggests that tone policing is frequently aimed at women[1] and attempts to derail or silence opponents who may be lower on the "privilege ladder".
In changing their tactics to criticizing how the women spoke instead of what the women said, the men created an environment in which the outcome of a dispute was not decided on the merits of an argument but on whether the men chose to engage with the arguments in good faith.[1]

------------

Your perceptions about my tone have nothing to do with proving your claims true, or disproving my claims.

And more unsupported claims. You are getting rather boring merely repeating your prior errors, making the logical fallacies that you claim I am making.

And watch the "trolling" comment. That is mere projection on your part and is getting close to a rule violation.

If you can be polite I will gladly have a discussion with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you just forget about any personal slight, and just deal with what he presented. After all, we're all adults here... right?
Fighting about words will get us nowhere.

Okay. make your rule book, and I'll play by them.
Where do you want me to start?

If I start here is this a violation?
Genesis 7 American Standard Version (ASV)
7 And Jehovah said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female: 3 of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Let's try a general explanation first. I assume that you do not believe that God lies. If all of the evidence out there tells us that there was no flood. and that evidence is somehow wrong that evidence would have to have been created, the only being with the power of creation in the Bible is God. By you claiming that all of the evidence is wrong you are in essence claiming that God lied. Now if you want a rundown of the evidence I could go on and on, or you could watch those videos that bothered you so much. I did not link them, but AronRa is correct about the evidence that he presents.

When one deals with people on the order of @Rise all of the time the language of AronRa is more than reasonable.

 

[exchemist]

He's referring to this: Huge Underground 'Ocean' Discovered Towards Earth's Core

Yes I realise that. It's wholly misleading. The mineral at the centre of this hoo-ha is ringwoodite, which contains a princely 1%, or even up to 2.5% (!) water in its solid mineral structure.Ringwoodite - Wikipedia

As I understand it the recent work finds magma at great depth (400km), suggestive of a what they call "dehydration melting" of a hydrous mineral - such as ringwoodite, which is I gather a hydrous form of olivine (one of the main rock minerals making up the mantle at that depth).

As the Wiki article says, if indeed ringwoodite is prevalent in the mantle transition zone, as the authors of the paper hypothesise, it could mean the amount of chemically bound water in these mantle minerals would be about three times the volume of water on the surface in the oceans and atmosphere. But, as I understand it, this is not a huge revelation: geophysicists have always known the total amount of water present in this planet is composed of water in the atmosphere, in the oceans and in the rocks. Volcanoes have always been known to emit a lot of water vapour.

To repeat: there is no underground "ocean" of water. That is silly journalistic hype.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks Audie for taking the time to respond to one of my posts. I don't think we have interacted before, it is always nice to get a response to something you say just so you know someone is listening. I only wish I had made a better impression.



Yes, you can, I will not argue with you there. I do not feel I am the brightest bulb in the pack. I do not have a degree in Physics or Geology. I did like the Mathematics and Physics classes I took and always got A's, can't remember ever getting a A- or below. Now on Geology I did not do so good, even though ironically it seems like I do more work in that field.



The only problem with this is that you say 'There Used to be people...' I guess there still are people like that, I would claim that and even believe it is possible. I would put electrodes into a container of water and separate the hydrogen and oxygen in separate containers and burn that in my car.

But I guess I tend to believe almost anything. I always thought the question 'is the glass half full or half empty' as silly and would answer it is full and overflowing.

It's off-topic but, just to put your mind at rest, you can electrolyse water to get hydrogen and oxygen. And you can in principle run your car on the hydrogen you have produced. Your problem is it takes the same amount of energy to electrolyse the water as you get back from burning the hydrogen. So you would achieve nothing. You might save on your gasoline bill but you'd have you pay your electricity supplier instead!

 

[exchemist]

I'm not a young earth creationist.
The guys in the video were arguing about Mount Ararat. My argument is since every mountain isn't volcanic, how can we speculate as to the condition of the mountain over 4000 years ago.
Yes, it was amusing. The argument holds no water. imo.

But Mt. Ararat is volcanic.

And we know from geological measurements quite a lot about its history of past eruptions. Interestingly, there seems to have been a phreatic (steam-driven) eruption as recently as the c.19th. More here: Mount Ararat - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

Well, mister zone, let me explain the timeline to you, since you seem to know it all.

First of all, the Bible is a recurring prophecy. The events described in it come to pass at the end of every Age or "Yuga", in the Vedic timeline. We are swiftly approaching the end of the fourth Age or "Kali Yuga".

What you need to understand is that these Ages are all of finite length. They are based on the "procession of the equinox". We are currently coming to the end of the fourth Age. There are specific events that occur at the end of every Age, that must happen.

There is a "prophet for the end of the Age" named in each.

There is also a battle that is officially titled, "The battle of good and evil that must be fought to end the Age". The battle for this current Age is the biblical "battle of the Armageddon". The first three battles, were respectively, the battle that is recalled in the "Epic of Gilgamesh" for the first Age, the "battle of the Ten Kings" where Moses kicked the Egyptians butts for the second Age, and the battle that must be fought in the third Age, was the Battle recounted in the Mahabharata.

There is a cataclysmic event that occurs at the end of every Age as well, and the flood of Noah was the event that ended the third Age.

The event that ended the second Age, which was the Age of Moses, was called the "Deluge" or "flood of Manu".

The "procession of the equinox", which these ages are all based upon, is 25,700 years in length. This Age is one procession in length. The age of Noah was two processions in length, at roughly 52,000 years. The Age of Moses, which was the second Age, was four processions in length at 104,000 years. And the first Age, of Abraham, was eight processions in length, which I'll let you figure out since youre a math genius.

So, absolutely, the flood did happen, twice. But the flood of Noah only once.

You're basing your assumption on a mathematical formula that isnt wrong in terms of the amount of rain possible, but assume that every one died in the flood. They did not. Looking at the time line of ireland, it becomes clear that they survived the flood, but then forty days and nights of rain is just the usual weather there. Go back to the Fomorian culture, who showed up there after the second flood or Deluge, and you'll find that the place was deserted, but there was evidence of life that they found there. That is because the people that lived there previously did not survive the Deluge, which was caused by a comet impacting in the laptev sea. The scar left in the earth from that one is still visible on satellite images. So, the flood of Noah really didn't effect Ireland because of the height of the island.

What you also fail to understand is the Bible is nothing but a eschatological prophecy, period, from beginning to end. There is no message of "good hope" in there. That was shoehorned in to it be the council of Nicea where the Bible was framed from ancient Sumerian and Babylonian texts.

And, another thing, mister geology, is that modern science does not understand the speed at which carbon degrades, and the timeline that you think you comprehend, is completely skewed.

When you consider the notion the modern science place the battle to end the first Age at a mere 20,000 years ago, and the actual timeline, places it more than 175,000 years age. That's a serious discrepancy.

So, the flood of Noah did occur, but you shouldn't worry about that. What you need to concern yourself with, is where you're going to be when the cataclysmic that ends this Age happens.

There is a thirty mile wide comet that will impact the earth in equatorial Amazonia that you probably want to get good seats for, since you'll be here for that one.

Precession.

And modern science understands very well the speed at which carbon degrades. If you contend it does not, show us your evidence.

 

[exchemist]

Because it takes millions of years to form most mountains. That means a mountain 4,000 years ago would be almost identical to what it looks like today.

...except volcanoes of course, which can radically change in a matter of hours or days. Mt Ararat is a volcano.

 

[Native]

There are many different interpretations of the Noah's Ark myth in Genesis. From my experience all of them can be shown to have never occurred. My only assumption here will be that it God exists he does not lie.

Of course I can't demonstrate a concept to be in error until people clearly state their beliefs. So please tell us what you mean by the Floor and we can discuss your version.

-------------------
IMO it is necessary to deal with several other cultures story of the Flood Myth but the biblical only in order to find out what it is all about. - Link List of flood myths - Wikipedia

Most Flood Myths comes in connection with a cultural telling of the creation. We all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe. These cosmological facts is embedded in most cultural myths.

These facts constitutes the entire imagery in the cultural stories of creation. That is: The ancient known part of the creation deals specifically with the preconditions and the factual creation of the Milky Way galaxy - and NOT with the creation of the entire Universe.

The appearance of the Milky Way contours have been described by humans as a "heavenly river" in several cultures. The Milky Way white "foamish" contours can be observed all around the Earth and many rivers on the Earth are named as a remembrance of this heavenly river. Link - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

- If having clues of this mythical connection with astronomical features, ancient and historic authors had no other options than to believe that this river once covered the entire Earth instead of encircling the entire Earth up in the night Sky.

So: The Flood Myth is IMO real cosmological knowledge but it is distorted to be both personal (Noa) and geographical via the lack of astronomical observations. - Read more here - The Flood Myths origin from the Milky Way Rivers

 

[exchemist]

-------------------
IMO it is necessary to deal with several other cultures story of the Flood Myth but the biblical only in order to find out what it is all about. - Link List of flood myths - Wikipedia

Most Flood Myths comes in connection with a cultural telling of the creation. We all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe. These cosmological facts is embedded in most cultural myths.

These facts constitutes the entire imagery in the cultural stories of creation. That is: The ancient known part of the creation deals specifically with the preconditions and the factual creation of the Milky Way galaxy - and NOT with the creation of the entire Universe.

The appearance of the Milky Way contours have been described by humans as a "heavenly river" in several cultures. The Milky Way white "foamish" contours can be observed all around the Earth and many rivers on the Earth are named as a remembrance of this heavenly river. Link - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

- If having clues of this mythical connection with astronomical features, ancient and historic authors had no other options than to believe that this river once covered the entire Earth instead of encircling the entire Earth up in the night Sky.

So: The Flood Myth is IMO real cosmological knowledge but it is distorted to be both personal (Noa) and geographical via the lack of astronomical observations. - Read more here - The Flood Myths origin from the Milky Way Rivers

How ridiculous. There is no argument given here, at all, for connecting the Milky Way, even if perceived as being a "river", with any flood myth.

What a load of tosh.

 

[Native]

How ridiculous. There is no argument given here, at all, for connecting the Milky Way, even if perceived as being a "river", with any flood myth.

What a load of tosh.

Did you even read the links? Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

How ridiculous. There is no argument given here, at all, for connecting the Milky Way, even if perceived as being a "river", with any flood myth.

What a load of tosh.

I have even less respect for New Age mysticism than I do for ancient religions. At least they had a valid excuse for their ignorance.