MovieChat Forums > Noah (2014) Discussion > Questions about the flood

Questions about the flood


After watching the movie Noah, three questions came into my mind.

If the biblical flood really took place:

1) Where did the water go to after the flood?
If water covered the mountains and then drained away, where did so much water go to?

2) Was Noah's ark the only ship in the world?
When the flood was starting, wouldn't some people (who are not from Noah's family) have managed to get onto boats and ships? They could then ride out the flood and survive.

3) Where are the cities / buildings from the time before the flood?
Have any been found?

reply

Interesting thoughts.. I think you have a real point there..

reply

You're trying to apply logic to a fictional story. It can't be done. The myth that was eventually written down by some Hebrew scribe has no logic to it.

You might as well ask why the Wicked Witch of the West could control flying monkeys. It's all fiction.

reply

Each ancient civilization had a flood myth. They clearly did not create it out of thin air. There must be some truth in the story.

reply

The only "truth" in the story is that humans exaggerate. A village gets wiped out in a flood. The survivors tell others about it. To them, their village was the whole world. Over time, the story is repeated by others, with details becoming more exciting and dramatic. It's called oral tradition. These stories get handed down from generation to generation. It's how culture was preserved before humans had developed systems of writing.

Anyone with the most basic understand of anthropology knows how this works. It does not mean that these stories contain "truth." It certainly does not mean that these stories are literal history.

If only "Christians" were smart enough to understand that their Bible is nothing more than collections of these types of myths...

reply

Are you saying that the global flood myths started with a flood in a single village? Was it a Babylonian or Sumerian village? Why would they exaggerate a story of a local flood? What goals were they seeking to achieve? Who precisely invented the first flood story and why? More importantly, why would every single known ancient civilization have a flood story with common characters and themes?

reply

Because floods happen everywhere. Ancient civilizations were exclusively built near water.

reply

You poor, uneducated thing. You didn't finish school, did you? First -- and most importantly -- only a tiny fraction of ancient civilizations have flood myths. I know you don't know this, but there were tens of thousands of ancient civilizations, but only perhaps one in a thousand had an oral tradition of a flood myth. Many have the same myth; the Hebrew myth was merely an embellishment of other myths from the area, like the Babylonian myth.

Here's a helpful hint for you: Regional floods happen all over the world, all the time. I know your lack of schooling prevented you from learning this, so I'm telling you now. Since ancient peoples didn't understand weather, they ascribed it to imaginary, invisible deities. Just like you do. I guess humanity is going backward now with the regression of intelligence exhibited by people like you.

Secondly, people embellish and exaggerate stories in order to make them more memorable, more exciting. Christians do this all the time. They go to the doctor and then claim that a "miracle" occurred when simple medical treatment cured the illness that God obviously wanted to kill them.

Thirdly, the beauty of oral tradition is that it's impossible to know when and by whom the story was invented. This is VERY basic anthropology, known by anyone with an IQ over about 70.

Do people like you ever wonder what your life would have been like if you had been born smart, or is that kind of thinking too complex?

reply

Settle down

reply

only a tiny fraction of ancient civilizations


LOL! Just about every ancient civilization had a global flood myth, perhaps even every single one.

Watch this documentary video and become educated on that issue and on many others:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

reply

If only a small fraction of ancient civilizations had flood myths, I ask you the following:

1. What civilizations had ones and what were the remaining civikizations that did not?

2. Why do common themes run through all the ancient flood myths?

3. If oral tradition cannot be proven or disproven, how can you assert with certainty that is false? After all, oral testimony is considers more pro stove than any other type of evidence of the existence or non-existence of a fact.

4. If ancient civilizations falsely ascribed regional floods to a deity, what was the basis of their belief in scorer deities. What caused such a belief?

5. Describe the regional floods to which you refer.

reply

Please forgive some of the misspellings in my previous post. The absence of a spell check and my woeful lack of education should allow me a few minor indulgences.

reply

Honey, look. I know you lack education, but your questions show so much lack of understanding that the answers cannot possibly satisfy you.

Let me just point out that oral tradition has no need to be proven or disproven. It's not something that occurs over a generation or two. Stories in the oral tradition can span hundreds or thousands of years. They change over time. Without verifiable scientific evidence to back them up, they are called myths. You know, mythology?

Of course, all you flood-believing simpletons don't understand, so let's put it in terms that even a child could understand. (That will still go over the heads of many of you.)

Almost all ancient civilizations have myths describing the history and actions of multiple gods. According to all of you, this means that there is 100% evidence that many gods exist. Not one god, but many. Almost all ancient civilizations had stories regarding a flat earth around which two equally sized gods -- the sun and moon -- revolved. That means that it is 100% true that the earth is flat and that the sun and moon are gods -- the same size -- that circle the earth, disappearing from the sight of every creature on the planet when they circle around to the other side. You've said that having many ancient civilizations believe this makes it absolutely true.

So, which of the many, many gods is your puny, insignificant god? Is he Zeus? Is he Osiris? Is he Vishnu? You believe that oral tradition of ancient civilizations is absolutely true, so there must be many, many gods out there.

Remind me, where does the sun-god go at night? I forgot. I know EVERY ancient civilization had some explanation. Does he go into the sea? Does he travel through a tunnel right under our feet?

You all are the ones who believe all this is true, so please explain how it works.

P.S. You may see that I've edited this post. That's what intelligent people do when they see they've misspelled a word. What's your reason for not doing that?

reply

the oral tradition can span hundreds or thousands of years. They change over time.


That's not true of Jewish/Christian oral tradition, probably was also not true of other oral traditions either. They were extremely careful to relay every single word, verbatim, with surgical precision.

That is hard to comprehend nowadays, because nowadays the same job would be performed by a flunkie whose head is buried in his iPhone while he is playing Pokemon Go and trying to memorize the words, just before he accidentally walks off of a cliff.

In other words, in olden times they took oral tradition much more seriously than most modern consciousnesses can even grasp.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

reply

insulting others only hurts your opinion.

reply

I haven't read all the posts, but I found this as one explanation for the "Flood Myth."

http://www.noahtherealstory.com/the-flood.html

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

read Immanuel Velikovsky - Worlds in Collision - Earth's pole shift caused by planetary interactions resulted in global tsunamis and ice caps melting.
Earth's orbit changed, from China to India to Babylon to Egypt to Rome, the calendars had to be remade, from 360 days a year, to 365.25 days a year.
Sun started rising from the East, instead of the West, temples built to match the Sun's position at equinoxes were abandoned or modified, to correspond to the new celestial order.
Earth's crust ruptured, continents drifted away, mountains rose, others collapsed, waters retreated then swept across the land, covering it under dozens of meters of mud - oil diggings in Canada uncover fossil graveyards of animals crushed in mass extinction events.


The myth about the great flood is found in all cultures, so the site you linked to, with its "Black Sea event" is clueless... it would require that people around Black Sea to have reached South America and Australia long before 1492, and impress the people living there, with their European homeland stories, which is simply preposterous.

reply

Earth's pole shift caused by planetary interactions resulted in global tsunamis and ice caps melting.
With which planet(s) did Earth interact? When did all this supposedly happen?
Earth's orbit changed, from China to India to Babylon to Egypt to Rome, the calendars had to be remade, from 360 days a year, to 365.25 days a year.
OK, if you say so. I'm not doubting your beliefs, but, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The myth about the great flood is found in all cultures, so the site you linked to, with its "Black Sea event" is clueless...
This is just one theory to explain the myth so many believe.
. . . it would require that people around Black Sea to have reached South America and Australia long before 1492, and impress the people living there, with their European homeland stories, which is simply preposterous.
I don't follow your reasoning, besides since the whole "Great Flood" is a myth, does it really matter?

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

With which planet(s) did Earth interact?

You can download Velikovsky's book for free, pdf format, on google. He nominated Venus as the planet responsible for the modifications in Earth's orbit.

He proposed that Venus moved to where it is now, from a previous orbit beyond Mars, and in its passing it interacted with Mars and Earth. The myths record Venus as the Great Comet - you can see Venus represented as a goddess with long flowing hair ('comet' comes from 'kometes', long haired) in paintings as recent as 1480 - Botticelli's Birth of Venus

it's best if you read Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, you can quickly get an idea of the hypothesis emerging from studying the myths and science:
eg. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system, which is at least remarkable.
eg. Venus is rotating opposite to the rest of the planets in the solar system, some proposing a cataclysmic encounter with an asteroid, capable of reversing its axial rotation, or massive "atmospheric tides" that flipped it over...

OK, if you say so. I'm not doubting your beliefs, but, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

They're not my beliefs, but common knowledge for historians. It's just that they don't give us this information in public schools. google "ancient calendar 360 days" and you can read about it in Encyclopedia Britannica.

Even in the Bible, the year was 360 days long, I know you wouldn't consider the Bible as a reliable source, but there you go, the existence of the (very) ancient 360 days calendar, is (should be) common knowledge, nothing extraordinary.

This is just one theory to explain the myth so many believe.

Many believe in God. The argument "Many believe X is true, few believe X is false, therefore X is true" is fallacy...

I don't follow your reasoning, besides since the whole "Great Flood" is a myth, does it really matter?

I will give you the definition of "myth" from Oxford Dictionary:
A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon.

To think that the flooding of Black Sea is the source of myths about mountains of water sweeping the land in Australia or Hawaii, is ludicrous.


reply

To think that the flooding of Black Sea is the source of myths about mountains of water sweeping the land in Australia or Hawaii, is ludicrous.
It's just a theory, like the whole Flood Myth to begin with - as is the idea that -
"Venus was expelled as a comet and then changed to a planet after contact with a number of members of our solar system" (Velikovsky 1972:182). –
How do you change a comet into a planet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

I'll admit it's an interesting story.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

How do you change a comet into a planet?

Yes, the use of the word "comet" may be unfortunate, in that by "comet" most people understand "small thingie". Worse, most people think of comets as "snowballs", which is as far from the reality as possible.

Think of Aurora Borealis, or "northern lights". That's not "lights", but plasma, resulted from the interaction of the solar wind with Earth's magnetosphere.

Now imagine a hundred times stronger process, and you have a planet leaving a huge tail of plasma (ionized gases) behind it, as its atmosphere leaks out into the cosmic void.

You can find photos of Venus, today, showing it still leaking its atmosphere. Now imagine it a few thousand years ago, with an impressive tail, spiraling into the depths of space, coiling like a snake, engaged in electric interactions with Mars, Earth, the Sun.

Venus is Lucifer, the snake that fell from heaven. In countries like Romania, Venus is referred to as the Luceafar (from latin Lucifer), without the evil connotation, as Lucifer means in latin "the light bearer".

Allover the Earth, Venus still retains the fame of the Shining One. One might say that's because it's the most shiny object in the sky. But the truth is that Venus was once many times bigger and brighter, a fire spitting dragon or feathered serpent (the plasma tail) engaged in a battle with a hero in a chariot (the planet) shooting arrows (electric discharges).

Take a look at western representations of Virgin Mary - google "virgen coronada cordoba" or "virgen de la almudena" or simply "virgin mary snake". That's a comet. Virgin Mary inside a shining halo, crushing the snake beneath her feet.

reply

If you want to believe all that, fine. I don't.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

then you will never understand why did the ancient civilizations worship Saturn, Venus or Mars, in terror.

you might want to watch this vid Symbols of an Alien Sky - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY at thunderbolts channel on youtube, this stuff is seriously investigated by modern scientists.

reply

this stuff [why did the ancient civilizations worship Saturn, Venus or Mars, in terror , my emphasis] is seriously investigated by modern scientists.


Please link to some authoritative science work, as a matter of serious investigation on this subject. Preferably some peer-reviewed archaeological papers.


YooToob videos do not count.

You still seem to be peddling the old Velikovsky theories, notably the bits which claim a peculiarly wandering Venus during times of recorded ancient history - which, as I patiently explained to you before, are not considered respectable science these days, either from the point of view of historians or from modern understanding of how celestial mechanics work.


You are really mentally ill!
You _must_ be homosexual.
Melanie000

reply

I respect your beliefs, why can't you respect mine?

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

I'm only saying that the idea that the flooding of the Black Sea is the source of global myths about a great flood, makes no sense. I donno what are your beliefs.

reply

[deleted]

I believe the Flood story is just that, a story told by a tribal elder to put the "fear of God" into the masses.

"Do what I say, or God will bring forth another disaster upon you."

These stories made the rounds among the tribes and, with each telling, became embellished until the tale became a worldwide catastrophe - except for those who followed God's word as claimed by the self-appointed priest.

Do I have any evidence of this? Of course not. But it makes as much sense to me as the supernatural tale in a book written thousands of years ago.

I still claim the flooding of the Black Sea is as plausible as any theory for the Flood.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

I believe the Flood story is just that, a story told by a tribal elder to put the "fear of God" into the masses.

There is only one gigantic problem with your belief. How would people come up with the idea of God in the first place?

As a side note - if you begin to study mythology, you will have a revelation. Stuff like the wheel, was not invented out of necessity, but as a religious symbol! From there, it became a technology.
You will have an even more perplexing revelation: things you associate with modern science - like gravity or black holes and white holes, matter and antimatter, are derived from religious symbolism, too!

Back to the problem of God. How did men come up with the idea that there is an eye in the sky, observing us from a place out of reach for mortals?

If you take a look to the documentary I linked you to - Symbols of an Alien Sky, you will realize that all major religions - Christianity, Freemasonry, Islam, Hinduism, etc. refer to the same god. Saturn. The eye in the sky. The turning wheel. The keeper of time.

Now trust me, and google images for "Fomalhaut B" or "helix nebula" or "SN1987" or "V838" or "SBW1" or "necklace nebula". Then google "vajra" or "ancient thunderbolts of gods".

All religious symbols are representations and alterations of representations of celestial events, in our vicinity. Perhaps it was a planet, and there's the asteroid belt, which are the remains of a planet. Perhaps it was a star, a brown dwarf, and there's Saturn with its rings, now a gaseous giant. Something that really caused cataclysms here on earth.



The claim that God was invented because it scared people into submission, would require people to be surreal. Think about how people would react if you told them "Do what I say, or Batman will not allow you ascension to his Batcave, and The Joker will torment you forever in Gotham as punishment"

You need to study a bit of psychology, to understand that Batman doesn't become God just like that. You really need a Batman to decimate societies repeatedly, modify the environment repeatedly, over generations, for cultures to internalize the concept that there is a megapowerful entity dwelling in a place up in the sky, called Batcave, whence it unleashes devastating phenomena, like thunderbolts, able to wipe out populations, cities and landscapes.
There's the Bronze Age Collapse at 1200bc, the Neolithic Collapse from 2200bc. Civilizations from Europe to Asia, collapsed at the same time. That's the result of massive, global phenomena, that you are simply unaware of.


The gods of the ancient civilizations, were the planets! Even today, God is still linked to a planet. Google "Jesus I am the Morning Star"

Jesus is the Star of David, which is Shamash, Saturn.
Jesus is the Morning Star, which is Ishtar, Venus.

But planets as we see them today, are mere dots in the sky. For them to become the gods, they had to have a significant, tangible influence on earth.

It's easy for you to conclude: planet Saturn as the father of gods, is rubbish...
But that's only because you don't understand, because you don't have information.


reply

I believe the Flood story is just that, a story told by a tribal elder to put the "fear of God" into the masses.

There is only one gigantic problem with your belief. How would people come up with the idea of God in the first place?
These are my beliefs and that in itself makes them viable to me. If you believe in something else, something that gives you comfort, fine. I respect your beliefs, why are trying to change mine?

Attempts by one group to alter the beliefs of another is the root cause for thousands of years of suffering. Leave people's beliefs alone as long as these beliefs don't harm others.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

These are my beliefs and that in itself makes them viable to me. If you believe in something else, something that gives you comfort, fine. I respect your beliefs, why are trying to change mine?

I respect your beliefs, and I don't want to hurt them, I assure you of that. May the force be with you!

reply

May the force be with you!
Live long and prosper. 

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

The claim that God was invented because it scared people into submission, would require people to be surreal. Think about how people would react if you told them "Do what I say, or Batman will not allow you ascension to his Batcave, and The Joker will torment you forever in Gotham as punishment"

You need to study a bit of psychology, to understand that Batman doesn't become God just like that. You really need a Batman to decimate societies repeatedly, modify the environment repeatedly, over generations, for cultures to internalize the concept that there is a megapowerful entity dwelling in a place up in the sky, called Batcave, whence it unleashes devastating phenomena, like thunderbolts, able to wipe out populations, cities and landscapes.


Have you been drinking?


You are really mentally ill!
You _must_ be homosexual.
Melanie000

reply

1) Where did the water go to after the flood?


It went into the seas, lakes, oceans, etc., and some of it evaporated into the atmosphere.

Was Noah's ark the only ship in the world?


No, but it was the only one capable of surviving the flood.

When the flood was starting, wouldn't some people (who are not from Noah's family) have managed to get onto boats and ships?


That would be what we call in modern times "A day late and a dollar short."

They could then ride out the flood and survive.


No, they couldn't survive. They could ride for a tiny while, until the water consumed them, but that's about it.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

reply

No, but it was the only one capable of surviving the flood
other boats couldn't float?

How do hou explain trees that predate the flood? Amphibious trees or the bible got its timeline wrong?

reply

other boats couldn't float?


I'm not saying the other boats couldn't float.

Rather, what I am saying is that the other boats couldn't withstand the extremely harsh winds, storms, tidal waves, hurricanes, tsunamies, el nino's, tornadoes, etc. that came with the Flood. Noah's Ark is the only boat that had enough resilience to stand up to all of that without being destroyed.

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

reply

Can you explain why there are trees that did?

reply

How do you know there are trees that did?

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

reply

Dendrochronology

reply

Dendrochronology


Can you elaborate as to how that response answers the question of how you know there are trees that did?

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

reply

That using dendrochronology we can ascertain that there were trees living through the flood.

reply

That would be what we call in modern times "A day late and a dollar short."


The flood took them by surprise. They had not prepared the food and water needed to survive several months at sea, and died of starvation on the boats / ships they boarded.

Possible?

reply

[deleted]

1) God made it magically appear, then magically disappear.

2) Maybe. If there were others, god sank them.

3) Washed away completely in the flood and ground into powder by god magic.


All plots work if you throw enough magic at them.



--
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

reply

I figure atheists heads will explode after I respond. But so be it.
The flood really did take place because the evidence is all around us in the fossil record and the layers of mud and clay that we call sedimentary rock.

It is only the interpretation of how the fossil record happened and how the layers got there that differ. Nobody can deny they exist, because they do exist!
This is mostly because the majority of the science community hold to a common theory.
That theory then influences their observations.
Theory generally shapes the perceptions of one's reality proving that science is anything but "open minded".

Question #1.
If the surface of the earth were flattened out we would find our planet totally under water.
The amount of water on the planet is the same as when it was formed.
H2O is the most common element on the surface.
Remove the 2-4 mile deep trenches under the surface of the oceans and reduce the size of the upraised (even science believes the mountain ranges were raised up by continental drift.) mountain ranges reduced the water would easily cover the entire surface of the planet.

Question #2.
I was not around then. I am sure there where ships back then. Noah knew how to build one so he probably simply scaled up current designs following God's dimensions.
Again, I was not there. So that is only supposition.
But the bigger question should be.... why build a boat that big when it would take a huge engine to move it?
The simple answer is that boats at that time were smaller and more easily sailed using wind and man power.
The ark never needed any power.
It was never intended to sail anywhere. It's only purpose was to stay afloat and hopefully remain with-in the area where it was first built while keeping the occupants safe.

Question #3.
We have them.
There are many structures found all over the planet that could very well have been built prior to the flood.
Pyramids of Giza, Yonaguni Monument off Japan's coast, Tiahuanaco in Bolivia, the Osireion in Egypt, and Baalbek in Lebanon are just a few.
Most were built using stones that are bigger and heavier than powerful machinery we currently have today could even move.
This leads to ancient people probably being far more intelligent than science have been telling us.

reply

Are you suggesting god changed the shape of the earth to flood it and then changed it again to drain it?

reply

I figure atheists heads will explode after I respond. But so be it.


The only thing making anyone's head explode here is that any school system could turn out someone with absolutely NO understanding of science.

If you truly believe that sedimentary rock formed tens of million years ago is somehow proof of a global flood, then you are officially less educated than a mentally handicapped cocker spaniel. I can't even imagine how someone could possibly be so unintelligent. You must be some sort of troll. Either that, or you're just a typical Republican.

Tell me, are you proud of somehow managed to avoid learning anything during the few years you attended school? Or were you home-schooled by a stay-at-home idiot?

You literally know less about science than my cat -- and my cat is pretty dumb.

reply

Question #1.
If the surface of the earth were flattened out we would find our planet totally under water.
The amount of water on the planet is the same as when it was formed.
H2O is the most common element on the surface.
Remove the 2-4 mile deep trenches under the surface of the oceans and reduce the size of the upraised (even science believes the mountain ranges were raised up by continental drift.) mountain ranges reduced the water would easily cover the entire surface of the planet.

That sounds plausible. But it would have meant TREMENDOUS changes over a short time in the geography of the Earth. The continents currently move at only a few inches per year.

I'm wondering if the flood water could've drained into huge caves under the seabed.

Question #3.
We have them.
There are many structures found all over the planet that could very well have been built prior to the flood.
Pyramids of Giza, Yonaguni Monument off Japan's coast, Tiahuanaco in Bolivia, the Osireion in Egypt, and Baalbek in Lebanon are just a few.
Most were built using stones that are bigger and heavier than powerful machinery we currently have today could even move.

Interesting.
I will add Stonehenge to that list.
I've been there and saw the huge stone blocks with my own eyes.
How humans moved them into place without modern day construction equipment is puzzling. Or did giants move them?

reply

Hello,

First you must understand that this movie isn't what happened. The whole, we should all suicide for the animals to grow is *beep* I'll try to tell story which I know and see if it makes sense. And yes I do believe that there was a mighty flood.

Adam & Eve had many children. They had many children. Most of them were Twins boy and girl each. The first Children were Abel & his twin sister, Cain & his twin sister. When Cain was ordered to marry Abel's twin and vice versa, Cain refused to let Abel marry his twin sister. And this was what caused him to kill Abel. Cain was then banished from that place for his crime.

Seth was another son of Adam & Eve. He too was a messenger/prophet like his father Adam and was tasked with spreading goodness unto this world. While Cain caused chaos and disbelieved in The Creator in the other side.

After many generations Noah was born to a descendant of Seth. He too was a prophet/messenger. Almost all of the world was influenced by Cain and many people had turn bad and disbelieved in The Creator.

Noah being a prophet/messenger tried to bring back people into goodness and belief in The Creator. He called them for goodness for almost 1000 years but still people disbelieved and called Noah a madman to to believe in the Creator. After almost 1000 years, Noah had only a few followers a group between 13 to 80 people. He gathered was ever the Animals in pairs to bring into the Ark.

So after 1000 years, he was tasked to make a huge ark. At that time, there wasn't anything as a flood, they had never witness flood before and continued disbelieving and mocking Noah. They said, there can't be a flood we are thousand of miles away from the oceans and the mountains are so high that a flood is impossible because they simple didn't believe in a creator.

So when the ark was being build they were arrogant and were mocking Noah. So when they rains started, they went to the Mountains, thinking that the Mountains can save them. Noah with the few people who believed and followed him went into the Ark. And so when the floods came in only the Family of Noah and his few followers survived.

Now to the questions.

1. Where did the water go?
It could have evaporated, it could have frozen into Ice. If God can make the heavens and the earth, and can make man and all his creations out of nothing. Can't he simple make the water go away!

2. Was Noah's Ark the only ship?
Maybe, probably. No one thought that a flood was coming. Maybe no one even knew how to make an Ark that can withstand a flood with the help of God.

3. I don't think the house or buildings were made out of stones back then. maybe mostly wooden houses. Plus a Flood so huge could have destroyed all the buildings. Or maybe there were ruins and the Family of Noah and his descendant used them back.

reply

DELUGE

The catastrophic destruction of men and animals by an overwhelming flood in the days of Noah, 2370 B.C.E. This greatest cataclysm in all human history was sent by Jehovah because wicked men had filled the earth with violence. The survival of righteous Noah and his family, eight souls in all, together with selected animals, was by means of a huge ark, or chest.—Ge 6:9–9:19; 1Pe 3:20

Extent of the Deluge. This was no local flash flood or cloudburst. In fact, the Greek word used in the Bible to refer to the Flood, or Deluge, is ka·ta·kly·smosʹ, a cataclysm. (Lu 17:27, ftn) Local floods come and go in a matter of days; this one lasted over a year, the greater portion of which was required for the water to subside. How unreasonable to believe that Noah spent perhaps 50 years building a huge vessel of approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) for the survival of his family and a few animals through a mere local flood! If only a comparatively small area was affected, why the need of bringing into the ark specimens of “every living creature of every sort of flesh” in order to “preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth”? (Ge 6:19; 7:3) Definitely this was a global deluge, the like of which had never occurred before nor has since. “The waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered. Up to fifteen cubits [c. 6.5 m; 22 ft] the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered.” (Ge 7:19, 20) “The end of all flesh has come before me,” Jehovah said, hence “I will wipe every existing thing that I have made off the surface of the ground.” And it was just so. “Everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died . . . only Noah and those who were with him in the ark kept on surviving.”—Ge 6:13; 7:4, 22, 23.

Timing of the Deluge. The Deluge did not come suddenly without warning. Years of time were spent building the ark, time that Noah the “preacher of righteousness” also used in warning that wicked generation. (2Pe 2:5) Finally the time limit was up “in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.” The “male and female of every sort of flesh” had been brought into the ark with Noah’s family, as well as a sufficient food supply for all, and “after that Jehovah shut the door.” Then “the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” (Ge 7:11, 16) There was an incessant torrential downpour for “forty days and forty nights”; “the waters continued overwhelming the earth” a hundred and fifty days. (Ge 7:4, 12, 24) Five months after the downpour began, the ark “came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” (Ge 8:4) It was nearly two and a half months later before “the tops of the mountains appeared” (Ge 8:5), another three months before Noah removed the ark’s covering to see that the earth had practically drained (Ge 8:13), and nearly two months later when the door was opened and the survivors set foot on dry ground once again.—Ge 8:14-18.

Noah and his family entered the ark in the 600th year of Noah’s life, the 2nd month (October-November), the 17th day. (Ge 7:11) One year later (a year consisting of 360 days) was the 17th day, 2nd month, 601st year. Ten days after that would be the 27th day of the 2nd month, when they came out; a total of 370 days, or parts of 371 separate days, spent in the ark. (Ge 8:13, 14) In the log that Noah kept, it appears he used months of 30 days each, 12 of them equaling 360 days. In this way he avoided all the complicated fractions involved had he used strictly lunar months consisting of slightly more than 29 1⁄2 days. That such calculations were used in the account is evident from the fact that a five-month period consisted of 150 days.—Ge 7:11, 24; 8:3, 4.

The Floodwaters. It has been said that if all the moisture in the atmosphere were suddenly released as rain it would not amount to even a couple of inches if spread over the earth’s surface. So from what source was this vast deluge of Noah’s day? According to the Genesis account, God said to Noah: “Here I [Jehovah] am bringing the deluge [or, “heavenly ocean”; Heb., mab·bulʹ] of waters upon the earth.” (Ge 6:17, ftn) Describing what happened, the next chapter says: “All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” (Ge 7:11) So overwhelming was the Deluge that “all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.”—Ge 7:19.

Where did this “heavenly ocean” come from? The Genesis account of creation tells how on the second “day” Jehovah made an expanse about the earth, and this expanse (called “Heaven”) formed a division between the waters below it, that is, the oceans, and the waters above it. (Ge 1:6-8) The waters suspended above the expanse evidently remained there from the second “day” of creation until the Flood. This is what the apostle Peter was talking about when he recounted that there “were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God.” Those “heavens” and the waters above and beneath them were the means that God’s word called into operation, and “by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water.” (2Pe 3:5, 6) Various explanations have been offered as to how the water was held aloft until the Flood and as to the processes that resulted in its falling. But these are only speculative. The Bible says simply that God made the expanse with waters above it and that he brought the Deluge. His almighty power could easily accomplish it.

Since, as the Genesis account says, “all the tall mountains” were covered with water, where is all that water now? Evidently it is right here on the earth. It is believed that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. As to the present situation, it is said that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105) So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover “all the tall mountains,” as the inspired record says.—Ge 7:19.

Effect on the Earth. With the Deluge great changes came, for example, the life span of humans dropped very rapidly. Some have suggested that prior to the Flood the waters above the expanse shielded out some of the harmful radiation and that, with the waters gone, cosmic radiation genetically harmful to man increased. However, the Bible is silent on the matter. Incidentally, any change in radiation would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 to such an extent as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the Flood.

With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust, which is relatively thin and varied in thickness, is stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62.

What evidence proves that there truly was a global deluge?

Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 328) In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously. Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains.

Flood Legends. Such a cataclysm as the Deluge, which washed the whole world of that time out of existence, would never be forgotten by the survivors. They would talk about it to their children and their children’s children. For 500 years after the Deluge, Shem lived on to relate the event to many generations. He died only ten years before the birth of Jacob. Moses preserved the true account in Genesis. Sometime after the Flood, when God-defying people built the Tower of Babel, Jehovah confused their language and scattered them “over all the surface of the earth.” (Ge 11:9) It was only natural that these people took with them stories of the Flood and passed them on from father to son. The fact that there are not merely a few but perhaps hundreds of different stories about that great Deluge, and that such stories are found among the traditions of many primitive races the world over, is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.—CHART, Vol. 1, p. 328.

These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1982.

In times past, certain primitive people (in Australia, Egypt, Fiji, Society Islands, Peru, Mexico, and other places) preserved a possible remnant of these traditions about the Flood by observing in November a ‘Feast of Ancestors’ or a ‘Festival of the Dead.’ Such customs reflected a memory of the destruction caused by the Deluge. According to the book Life and Work at the Great Pyramid, the festival in Mexico was held on the 17th of November because they “had a tradition that at that time the world had been previously destroyed; and they dreaded lest a similar catastrophe would, at the end of a cycle, annihilate the human race.” (By Professor C. Piazzi Smyth, Edinburgh, 1867, Vol. II, pp. 390, 391) Notes the book The Worship of the Dead: “This festival [of the dead] is . . . held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the Deluge took place, viz., the seventeenth day of the second month—the month nearly corresponding with our November.” (By J. Garnier, London, 1904, p. 4) Interestingly, the Bible reports that the Flood began “in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.” (Ge 7:11) That “second month” corresponds to the latter part of October and the first part of November on our calendar.

Scriptural Confirmation. Stronger evidence of the historicalness of the Deluge than the pagan traditions of primitive people is the endorsement other Bible writers gave under inspiration. The only other place where the same Hebrew word (mab·bulʹ, deluge) occurs outside the Genesis account is in David’s melody where he describes Jehovah as seated “upon the deluge.” (Ps 29:10) However, other writers make reference to and confirm the Genesis account, as, for example, Isaiah. (Isa 54:9) Ezekiel also endorses the historicity of Noah. (Eze 14:14, 18, 20) Peter draws heavily upon the Deluge account in his letters. (1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 2:5; 3:5, 6) Paul testifies to the great faith Noah displayed in constructing the ark for the survival of his household. (Heb 11:7) Luke lists Noah in the lineage of Messiah’s forebears.—Lu 3:36.

Even more significant is what Jesus said about the days of the Deluge, as recorded by both Luke and Matthew. Far more than just a simple endorsement of the veracity of the Deluge account, Jesus’ words show the pictorial and prophetic significance of those ancient events. In answer to the disciples’ question, “What will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” Jesus said, among other things: “For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.” (Mt 24:3, 37-39; Lu 17:26, 27) There is, therefore, abundant evidence from the inspired Holy Scriptures themselves to support the authenticity and genuineness of the Deluge account. It does not rest on mere traditions of men, on the folklore of primitive people, or on geologic and archaeological findings.

reply

Yes!

And only the willfully blind continue to deny the obvious.

Maranatha.

reply

If only a comparatively small area was affected, why the need of bringing into the ark specimens of “every living creature of every sort of flesh” in order to “preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth”?


Yes, just think of the time and effort it must have taken to herd together all the dinosaurs and to go and get the kangeroos. Presumably Noah was told about all those animals he had never heard of, in places at distances he could not imagine in order go round the world to collect them; no wonder he was 600 by the time he had dragged them all back (in one big trip?).. However as there was only two of everything then one assumes there was plenty of room back at the ark, while such considerations as inbreeding, genetic bottlenecks and lack of genetic variety to pass on to future animals was not really an issue.

The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously.


You didn't mention the strata which contains dinosaurs and the modern horse together. Time to do so now?

Where did Noah cut down all the gopher wood? In the gopher forests, one imagines.

Naturally every part of the Bible must be taken literally.



Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

1) Where did the water go to after the flood?
If water covered the mountains and then drained away, where did so much water go to?

Read Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.

It is a interdisciplinary theory, explaining the flood and other cataclysms of the past. It goes like this:
Earth's rotation was slowed by interaction with Venus, it's orbital tilt changed, resulting in a pole shift and longer year - 365.25 days instead of 360 days. All the ice that was stored in Earth's previous north pole, melted away, and huge tidal waves rushed from the equator to the poles.

This cataclysmic event is popularized by the governments of the world, as the end of the last (mini) Ice Age. You see, this pole shift happened repeatedly, as the history of the Solar system is completely different from the story they feed us in school.
The ruling class most likely thinks that it's better for the masses to have a concept of a stable, conservative, safe solar system, instead of a cataclysmic solar system - that would only breed religious hysteria, and we simply can't have that, in our new world order.


here's a small example, to understand what really happened: Mammoth fossils.

Mammoth fossils are mammoths that have been frozen suddenly, and they remained frozen, to our times, when they have been found, their ivory sold on the market, their meat given to the dogs, as it was as fresh as the day it was frozen.
Mammoth fossils are often found with summer plants from temperate climate in their molars, they were instantly frozen as they were grazing in the summer in a land that could provide 200kg of vegetation per day to a mammoth!


Current official explanation for the end of the ice age, is that an asteroid hit the ice, that's why no trace of its impact can be found...


Back to what really happened, part of the water that melted from the ice cap, was re-deposited as ice in the new poles, part of the water raising the ocean levels by hundreds of meters. You can see cities, in various places on Earth, that are now submerged in the seas and oceans, check out the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, or the English channel.

2) Was Noah's ark the only ship in the world?

Of course, the story of Noah is just a story, similar to Gilgamesh's story or Shraddhadeva Manu's story or Deucalion's story or Mamak and Inak's story. The idea is that the flood was a mass extinction event.


3) Where are the cities / buildings from the time before the flood?
Have any been found?

There's very old cities in Old Europe - Serbia-Romania-Bulgaria, like Lepenski Vir, which are dated to 9000bc, but that's because the official version puts the "Ice Age" to 12 000bc, they don't really have a method of dating.
What is now Banat, was once a huge lake, a sea, that drained up to antiquity, that official "science" puts it to 10 million bc - again, current geology is trapped in a paradigm forged by dudes from 300 years ago.

According to Velikovsky, the flood occurred in the time of the legendary Chinese Emperor Yahou, 3000-2000bc. The name of this Chinese emperor Yahou is compared to the Hebrew Yahweh, and the American indians Yahu - just search on youtube "native american yhwh" and listen.


that being said, the movie is bad.

reply

Read Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.



Velikovsky is not considered a scientific authority.




Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Velikovsky is not considered a scientific authority.

There is no such thing as a scientific authority. There's theories about the universe, and those theories are reformed, replaced, abandoned.

Currently there is a revolution going on in science, that will soon abolish the current paradigm propagated by the scientific establishment:

Comets as "ice dirtballs" - bogus.
Black holes and white holes - bogus.
Matter and anti-matter - bogus.
Gravity - bogus.
Big Bang - bogus.
Stars as nuclear furnaces - bogus.
Solar system formed by accretion over billions years - bogus.
Evolution through random mutations - bogus.
Humans as "lumbering robots" - bogus.

reply

There is no such thing as a scientific authority.
Currently there is a revolution going on in science, that will soon abolish the current paradigm propagated by the scientific establishment:

Comets as "ice dirtballs" - bogus.
Black holes and white holes - bogus.
Matter and anti-matter - bogus.
Gravity - bogus.
Big Bang - bogus.
Stars as nuclear furnaces - bogus.
Solar system formed by accretion over billions years - bogus.
Evolution through random mutations - bogus.
Humans as "lumbering robots" - bogus.


It is very reassuring to hear from an authority who knows so much.

And what theories and ideas are we to replace the above list with?


Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

first you have to clarify what "authority" means, from oxford dictionary:

1. The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience
2. A person or organization having political or administrative power and control
3. A book or other source able to supply reliable information or evidence

So you're thinking of "authority" as someone who has reliable information. Let's clarify what "reliable" means:

1. Consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted

Let's see what "consistent" means:

1. Acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate
2. not containing any logical contradictions
3. Compatible or in agreement with something

So let me ask you, how did you determine there's no logical contradictions in the stories they tell you, about quanta, black holes, anti-matter, big-bang, gravity, spacetime continuum, etc?

Have you personally verified the claim that mass creates gravity? No.
Have you personally put your finger inside a black hole? No.
Have you personally participated in a big-bang with Einstein's wife and cousin? No.

Then, how do you trust such idiocy as "the fabric of spacetime"?


I tell you how: You believe. You have faith in the Church of Science. You have accepted Einstein in your heart as your Lord and Savior.
You have no idea wtf the fabric of spacetime is, but it must be true, because the man inside the tv told you that it's true, and he showed you cgi pictures of his mom's black hole, from which not even light escapes, it's that dark! Just like inside your skull, where the brain lies dormant, thinking it is matter he experiences, through nerve terminations in his middle fingers.

You believe you are a piece of meat merely aware of its existence. A lumbering robot. A machine without soul. A golem, removed from the truth. An employee of the corporation.


alright, now let's list what replaces all that nonsense with which the oppressing class brainwashes us into the oblivion of our exploitation:

gravity - there is no such thing as gravity. There is electromagnetism - take a balloon, rub it against your t-shirt, then put it close to pieces of paper, cereals, leather, stuff. You will see them being attracted and sticking to the surface of the balloon. - https://youtu.be/hM32p7iGPAo

comets - comets are rocks, and as the get closer to other celestial bodies, the difference in their electrical charge causes electric interactions - the oxygen in the silicates of the comet's body, are fused with hydrogen from the solar flux, resulting in water - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcNcGTerTfw

stars - stars are electric transformers, not nuclear furnaces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3uWbVMKpLs

black holes/white holes - there's no such thing
spacetime continuum - there's no such thing
quanta - there's no such thing

planet formation - stars and planets are massive ejections of galactic currents, not accretion of dust disks that mysteriously precipitate into gravitational pits - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-ulxo3M3ys

evolution as random mutations - think only how come you've been born functional. A random process would mean there should be 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 chance that the infinitely complex machine that is your body, to successfully go from an egg cell to a lumbering robot, such as you see yourself.

humans as lumbering robots - hey, if you decided to identify yourself as a lumbering robot, who am I to try to convince you that you're something you haven't even begun to understand, you're that infinitely complex?

reply

All fascinating stuff; and I am greatly reassured that you know how to look things up in dictionaries. Although the use of YooToob university as the only source for the authority for dismissing huge swathes of scientific knowledge and theory is not, actually, that impressive. Especially when you tell us that, for others at least:

it must be true, because the man inside the tv told you that it's true,


But I am sure this was just an oversight on your part.

black holes/white holes - there's no such thing
spacetime continuum - there's no such thing
quanta - there's no such thing
gravity - there is no such thing as gravity etc etc


I am particularly impressed that you have apparently refuted Einstein, Hawking, (Newton even, with your odd view of gravity)etc etc together with, it seems, the theoretical foundations of so much of modern physics easily and readily. purely as formality, is there somewhere we can see your, no doubt widely acclaimed, and highly technical, research work in so many specialised topics? It would be shame otherwise, as you might just sound like some guy on the internet, sounding off for psychological reasons of his own, rather than the insightful and informed revolutionary scientist you must be.

the man inside the tv told you that it's true, and he showed you cgi pictures of his mom's black hole, from which not even light escapes, it's that dark! Just like inside your skull, where the brain lies dormant ... , if you decided to identify yourself as a lumbering robot, who am I to try to convince you that you're something you haven't even begun to understand


Unfortunately such sudden, and obscene ad hominems will always tell the reader more about you than they do about me. But I forgive you.


Meanwhile,

Have you personally verified the claim that mass creates gravity? No.
Have you personally put your finger inside a black hole? No.
Have you personally participated in a big-bang with Einstein's wife and cousin? No


On the same basis it seems reasonable to ask: have you personally verified (i.e. not just by believing the relevant scripture and the credulity of personal revelation) that any deity - I assume you are of this ilk - exists by putting your finger on it? Perhaps, like Moses, you have been granted view of the Lord's rear end? Can you otherwise direct me to verifiable and unambiguous proof? This is, after all, the standard you set.

You believe


Don't tell me what I believe.

You have faith in the Church of Science. You have accepted Einstein in your heart as your Lord and Savior


I'm sorry I don't attend the Church of Science. I am too busy handing out pro-abortion pamphlets in the Church of Darwin each Sunday, or singing from the atheist agenda.



Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Especially when you tell us that

Ah, the good old dissociative identity disorder maneuver... dude, I am talking to you, not to a counsel of judges inquisiting from the height of their holly chairs. You are one.

You are a sleeper, and I'm willing to spend a few minutes of my time to flick your nose, wake you up.

I am particularly impressed that you have apparently refuted Einstein

you wouldn't know, as you have zero comprehension of the gibberish that are the spacetime continuum, gravity, black holes, event horizon, singularities, time dilation, etc.

is there somewhere we can see your

Dude, you are one! You are not Gollum!

Unfortunately such sudden, and obscene ad hominems

Inside our skulls, yours, mine, it is dark. That's the truth, yet you feel offended by it...

have you personally verified (i.e. not just by believing the relevant scripture and the credulity of personal revelation) that any deity - I assume you are of this ilk

I am telling you that Gravity, Black Holes and White Holes, Spacetime, Matter and Antimatter, Big Bang, Singularities, are religious gibberish, yet you're trying to paint me as a religious fundamentalist.

you have a long road before you, out of the indoctrination pit into which you have been imprisoned.

reply

dude, I am talking to you


Indeed; and you told me in effect not to listen to 'the man inside the tv'. And yet here you are citing YooToob by way of an authority, and nothing else is offered. You can see how such confusions can arise.

You are a sleeper, and I'm willing to spend a few minutes of my time to flick your nose, wake you up.


That's very kind of you.

you wouldn't know, as you have zero comprehension of the gibberish that are the spacetime continuum, gravity, black holes, event horizon, singularities, time dilation, etc.


That's why I rely upon all your invaluable insights and still look forward, very keenly, to seeing your research work, hopefully peer reviewed, which substantiates your refutation of so much of modern science. Is that a problem?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is there somewhere we can see your ... research work in so many specialised topics?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude, you are one! You are not Gollum!


Translation: I do not have anything to offer but YooToob university videos and off-the-wall opinions.

Inside our skulls, it is dark. That's the truth, yet you feel offended by it...


Some, of us at least, have the lights switched on.

I am telling you that Gravity, Black Holes and White Holes, Spacetime, Antimatter, Big Bang, Singularities, are religious gibberish,


After reading your memorable (if over-egged and often impenetrable) post on 'Esotericism in Blade Runner' on that board from a while back, I think you ought to put the stone down and slowly back out of the glass house LOL

yet you're trying to paint me as a religious fundamentalist. you have a long road before you, out of the indoctrination pit into which you have been imprisoned.


Yeah, so you said.


Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Indeed; and you told me in effect not to listen to 'the man inside the tv'. And yet here you are citing YooToob by way of an authority, and nothing else is offered. You can see how such confusions can arise.

I have facilitated you access to the view of scientists who are pretty much revolutionizing science. Nothing more.

That's why I rely upon all your invaluable insights and still look forward

You don't have to rely upon my insights. I invited you to look at information provided by scientists, compare, reason, and reach a conclusion, on your own. Trust your own judgment. Do not cling to me for enlightenment. You don't need messianic figures to reveal you the truth.

After reading your memorable (if over-egged and impenetrable) post on 'Esotericism in Blade Runner'

Blade Runner is filled with esoteric symbolism, and if it seems impenetrable to you, that may be because such things are not taught in the schooling system that you have access to.

Understanding esoteric movies such as Blade Runner or Noah, Pi, The Fountain, The Wrestler, requires some research, an effort which you may not be willing to undertake.

reply

I have facilitated you access to the view of scientists who are pretty much revolutionizing science. Nothing more.


"I have linked to some yootoob videos, nothing more."

I invited you to look at information provided by scientists, compare, reason, and reach a conclusion, on your own. Trust your own judgment. Do not cling to me for enlightenment. You don't need messianic figures to reveal you the truth.


Thank you for your advice, unfortunately when I go on reputable and authoritative scientific sites none of them are so sweepingly dismissive of modern knowledge and theory as you. I wonder why that could be?

Blade Runner is filled with esoteric symbolism, and if it seems impenetrable to you, that may be because such things are not taught in the schooling system that you have access to.


Yes, I only wish I had applied to Hogwarts.


Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

"I have linked to some yootoob videos, nothing more."

Thunderbolts youtube channel is the most accessible place for you, to learn of the theory of the Electric Universe - that is, the universe is ruled by electricity, our solar system formed from electric phenomena, the Earth's aurora is an electric phenomena, Earth's climate is an electric phenomena, the brain, encased in the darkness of the skull, experiences the world through electrical impulses coming its way through the nerves in the body.

If you don't like youtube, by all means, go and learn of the Electric Universe by reading the works of scientists such as Hannes Alfven, Nikola Tesla, Kristian Birkeland, Anthony Peratt, Wal Thornhill, Donald E. Scott.

Thank you for your advice, unfortunately when I go on reputable and authoritative scientific sites none of them are so sweepingly dismissive of modern knowledge and theory as you. I wonder why that could be?

That's because they have invested all their lives in it. Reforming one's self, one's view of the world, is not an easy task.

It is easier for me to reform my view of the world, since I won't loose anything if I admit that I was completely wrong before learning that it is electricity which rules the universe, and not gravity.

A dude who is a professor in an university, and his income depends on his image as an authority, may find it harder to say to those who payed him for his "expertise": -hey, I was completely wrong up to this point, but now I am right! keep giving me monies so I can expand my knowledge, because I was clueless so far!

Would you believe a dude who you thought knew what he's talking about, if he tells you that he was completely in error, and you spent all that monies on him, for naught, but now he's found the truth, and this time he knows what he's talking about, so you should keep funding him?


Yes, I only wish I had applied to Hogwarts.

Or just read about alchemy, gnosticism, and freemasonry.

reply

Thunderbolts youtube channel is the most accessible place for you, to learn of the theory of the Electric Universe - that is, the universe is ruled by electricity, our solar system formed from electric phenomena, the Earth's aurora is an electric phenomena, Earth's climate is an electric phenomena, the brain, encased in the darkness of the skull, experiences the world through electrical impulses coming its way through the nerves in the body.

If you don't like youtube, by all means, go and learn of the Electric Universe by reading the works of scientists such as Hannes Alfven, Nikola Tesla, Kristian Birkeland, Anthony Peratt, Wal Thornhill, Donald E. Scott.


Thank you, perhaps I will. Maybe they will more convincing than you lol

Would you believe a dude who you thought knew what he's talking about?


Yes; hence you can imagine why I view some bloke on a movie message board, linking to yootoob videos and making sweeping generalisations about physics, with some scepticism lol

Or just read about alchemy, gnosticism, and freemasonry.


I think I will stick to science, but thanks anyway.

Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Thank you, perhaps I will. Maybe they will more convincing than you lol

You think like a religious dude. I'm not trying to convince you, convert you.

I simply stated that Noah's flood was god damn real, and it was a natural occurring event, caused by planetary interaction. And you have books written by Immanuel Velikovsky, who, by the way, cooperated with Einstein in establishing the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and they prolly even banged their cousins together, who knows! They were that close!

Yes

That explains why you're slacking on a movie forum, instead of being rich.

I think I will stick to science, but thanks anyway.

you mean masonic propaganda for golems who can't think good and wanna learn to do other stuff good too.

reply

I'm not trying to convince you


Then I am pleased that you will not be disappointed.

I simply stated that Noah's flood was god damn real, and it was a natural occurring event, caused by planetary interaction.


As I said before: Velikovsky's ideas are no longer considered viable for various reasons (although interestingly one or two of his minor predictions have proved true). His theory about the rogue movements of Venus for, instance does not reflect how celestial mechanics work. Neither, in a different discipline, has his abrupt shifting of Egyptian chronology to make things fit as he wanted to see them found much sympathy with historians. There is interest these days in the controversies surrounding his first book, but not for scientific reasons. More over the ham-fisted attempt by the original publisher to not publish his work under a science imprint, the accompanying brouhaha and the self-righteous outrage by an outsider author and his supporters, with claims over scientific censorship etc.


That explains why you're slacking on a movie forum, instead of being rich.


Hearing from you has somehow made it all worthwhile.

you mean masonic propaganda for golems who can't think good and wanna learn to do other stuff good too.


No, I just mean regular science.


Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Velikovsky's ideas are no longer considered viable for various reasons (although interestingly one or two of his minor predictions have proved true). His theory about the rogue movements of Venus for, instance does not reflect how celestial mechanics work.

...how celestial mechanics work according to the gravity theory! Which theory can't explain why Venus rotates on its axis, opposite to other planets, like Earth, Mars, Saturn.
According to the gravity theory - a cloud of dust rotating around the Sun, gradually accrued into planets, Venus' rotation should be completely opposite than how it is now. And not only Venus, Uranus spins on its axis, perpendicular to the eliptic!

According to the electric universe theory, these planets and their satellites behave so non-uniformly, because they are either captured, newly formed, or disturbed by the capture or formation of other planets.

Velikovsky's proposal for a cataclysmic solar system, was rejected by the establishment - proposing a uniformitarian solar system, since day one.

The Electric Universe theory is making an argument for a cataclysmic solar system. Just think of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, those asteroids are explainable only through cataclysm.

No, I just mean regular science.

You are not a scientist, obviously. You only listen to stuff the man in the tv tells you, and you don't process it rationally. You are only engaged in a trance of reassurement, that the management is in control, the president is standing watch so you can sleep without fear, Einstein smiles paternally at mankind from the recesses of a black hole up in the sky, everything gonna be just fine, now and forever, Amen!

reply

(Wow, something tells me that you two have discussed stuff like this before.)

reply

To be honest it is rare for Velikovsky to be take so seriously these days; over the last few years his name usually only comes up in discussions about academic censorship and pseudo science...



Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Which theory can't explain why Venus rotates on its axis, opposite to other planets, like Earth, Mars, Saturn.
According to the gravity theory - a cloud of dust rotating around the Sun, gradually accrued into planets, Venus' rotation should be completely opposite than how it is now. And not only Venus, Uranus spins on its axis, perpendicular to the eliptic! ... Just think of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, those asteroids are explainable only through cataclysm.


Plenty of things happened during the early years of the solar system, when all sorts of bodies were flying about, sometimes significant enough to effect catastrophic, or substantial change on the newly formed planets (the ejection from the earth of the moon for instance, the surface of which still bear scars of a continuing heavy bombardment even afterwards). A change in angle of rotation of a body by way of collision & etc is not really something one can rule out. So you are right; cataclysms are a factor to be considered here. But this still does not make Velikovsky's cosmic claims, which relate to a supposed much more recent, yet equally dramatic past, convincing. His highly speculative works, with an idiosyncratic grasp of history and cosmology, viewed sceptically even at the time, really belong next to such authors as Erik von Daniken, Graham Hancock et al, being more of popular, credulous, interest than a subject of any continuing scientific investigation. I'm sorry if you are emotionally attached to Velikovsky's romantic way with science and history, but that's the way it is.

You are not a scientist, obviously.


As you clearly are?

You only listen to stuff the man in the tv tells you,


No, quite the contrary I don't use yootoob much to educate myself, sorry.

You are only engaged in a trance of reassurement, that the management is in control, the president is standing watch so you can sleep without fear, Einstein smiles paternally at mankind from the recesses of a black hole up in the sky, everything gonna be just fine, now and forever, Amen!


More mild ad hominems like this don't do much other than make you seem defensive and without real points to make.



Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

A change in angle of rotation of a body by way of collision & etc is not really something one can rule out.

That's simply not possible in the gravity model. It would require a force outside the solar system, which means cataclysm.
If you state that the solar system formed from a disk of dust spinning around the Sun, over billions of years, without outside force, then you can't have Mercury spin ccw, Venus the opposite way, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn spin again ccw, then Uranus spins perpendicular, then Neptune again spins ccw, then pluto perpendicular again.

You can make an experiment yourself. Look at a centrifuge, think how would it be possible to have something in that centrifuge, go opposite to the direction of spin of the centrifuge, without an outside force.

Also, you have Earth, Mars, Saturn, Neptune tilted at 23, 25, 27, 28 degrees
then you have Mercury, Venus, Jupiter tilted at 0, -3, 3 degrees
then you have Uranus tilted at 98 degrees

Earth Mars Saturn Neptune locked at approx same tilt, makes an argument for the hypothesis that Saturn was a brown dwarf, with Earth, Mars, Neptune as planets, captured by the Sun.

As you clearly are?

I am not a scientist. But I asked you: if you think that only scientists can understand stuff like gravity, electricity, black holes, how do you know they are right? Since you're not a scientist.
How do you know that Einstein with his gravity is right, and Tesla with his electricity, is wrong, since you claim that only scientists know?

How do you know that the scientists know?!!!

You see, you are irrational, you corner yourself into the condition of a believer, who has faith in what the priest tells him. You renounce your ability to judge and reason, and you blindly trust authority.
You simply replaced "God knows all" with "Scientists know all".

But then, Tesla or Halfven, are the scientists, they are the authority, too! We do live in a paradigm of electricity, heralded by Tesla, and Halfven is a Nobel recipient.

How do you reconcile Tesla - electricity, with Einstein - gravity?

You fall even deeper into the pit of indoctrination: It is because the man inside the tv praises Einstein, and ignores Tesla - even though the tv works with electricity, not with gravity - that you decide that Einstein is right, and Tesla is wrong.

You may not realize this, but you have been indoctrinated: Einstein good, Tesla bad, even though Einstein's theories - he didn't even do laboratory experiments - are completely sterile, fruitless, no use.
Einstein's equations are not used in any technology we have today! From cars to computers, the fridge, the elevator, everything is using electricity.

There is no technology that produces or uses spacetime continuum or gravity. Complete blabber.
Sure, you will google and find the claim that the GPS satellites use Einstein's relativity theory. Yeah, no, idiocy.

More mild ad hominems

You don't even know what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is when you're saying "gravity exists" and I go "gravity doesn't exist, because you're not a scientist".

Me telling you that I think you're a victim of indoctrination, not as an argument for or against gravity, is not an ad hominem.

reply

That's simply not possible in the gravity model. It would require a force outside the solar system, which means cataclysm.
If you state that the solar system formed from a disk of dust spinning around the Sun, over billions of years, without outside force, then you can't have Mercury spin ccw, Venus the opposite way, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn spin again ccw, then Uranus spins perpendicular, then Neptune again spins ccw, then pluto perpendicular again.

You can make an experiment yourself. Look at a centrifuge, think how would it be possible to have something in that centrifuge, go opposite to the direction of spin of the centrifuge, without an outside force.

Also, you have Earth, Mars, Saturn, Neptune tilted at 23, 25, 27, 28 degrees
then you have Mercury, Venus, Jupiter tilted at 0, -3, 3 degrees
then you have Uranus tilted at 98 degrees

Earth Mars Saturn Neptune locked at approx same tilt, makes an argument for the hypothesis that Saturn was a brown dwarf, with Earth, Mars, Neptune as planets, captured by the Sun.


All of which is very interesting. Note that I am not saying that you and those alternate theories cannot be right, merely that some of your authorities are either dated or dubious while the weight of science, after almost a hundred years of advances in physics has other ideas and theories - many of whose predictions (gravitational waves, say) have been fulfilled by later patient experiment and observation. But even so, I suggest with these insights you contact all those scientists who persist with their delusions about cosmology, instead of trying to convince someone on a movie notice board. If you reference Velikovsky that will get a reply quicker.

if you think that only scientists can understand stuff like gravity, electricity, black holes, how do you know they are right? Since you're not a scientist.


Quite right, after all who needs experts? All of this is easy.

You see, you are irrational, you corner yourself into the condition of a believer, who has faith in what the priest tells him. You renounce your ability to judge and reason, and you blindly trust authority.
You simply replaced "God knows all" with "Scientists know all".


er.. but aren't you simply suggesting the substitution of one scientific theory (of electro-magneticism, say) for another (gravity)? And one authority (Tesla, Velikovsky etc) over Einstein, Hawking etc ?

How do you reconcile Tesla - electricity, with Einstein - gravity?


There is indeed a huge, and vexing, problem in modern physics in trying to reconcile the physics of Einstein and his successors (i.e. those theories concerning the very big) with quantum theory (that concerning the very small), all the while gravity obstinately refuses to fit - at least as we presently understand it - into the Standard Model. That is why many modern researcher see as the necessary aim, the 'holy grail' if you like, as working towards producing a 'General Theory of Everything' - but this is some way off. Two or three Einsteins, away maybe. But one suspects this is not what you are on about.

Tesla, certainly an interesting figure of some genius, has little to contribute in this modern dilemma, while one still remembers with a smile his supposedly receiving signals from another planet in his Colorado laboratory, or more spectacularly the ill-fated 'transmitting tower' which attempted to turn the earth into a giant dynamo, that effectively ended his career lol. He certainly contributed nothing like as significant as Einstein to a working model of the universe which can be shown to be correct.

you have been indoctrinated: Einstein good, Tesla bad,


This appears to be more of bee in your bonnet than mine; I have never really considered them as 'rivals' or presenting opposites, in quite the same way, neither have I seen discussion of the two figures in this light in the publications I have read (for instance I am a subscriber to New Scientist. Its an antagonistic opposition which, to be frank, seems a little simplistic. Although, admittedly I don't study at YooToob university.

You don't even know what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is when you're saying "gravity exists" and I go "gravity doesn't exist, because you're not a scientist".


where I have read, only just above:

if you think that only scientists can understand stuff like gravity, electricity, black holes, how do you know they are right? Since you're not a scientist.


LOL


An ad hominem is an argument or reaction, regularly derogatory, directed against a person and not the position they are maintaining. I hope that helps.

Me telling you that I think you're a victim of indoctrination, not as an argument for or against gravity, is not an ad hominem.


But telling me that I am "a trance" a "sleeper" "indoctrinated" "slacking on a movie forum," or "a piece of meat merely aware of its existence. A lumbering robot. A machine without soul. A golem, removed from the truth" "not beginning to understand", or to be considered in the light of a "personally participated ... big-bang with Einstein's wife and cousin" etc - is, representing an accumulation of slurs.

I am not offended btw, and I have heard worse. So I am sure you can do better.


Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

I am not saying that you and those alternate theories

You're biased from the get go: You think in terms of "The Theory vs alternate theories".

You already view the establishment's theory, that the man inside the tv blasts you with, as THE CHOSEN ONE, and everything else as merely an alternative, the other, secondary, optional, opposing THE CHOSEN ONE.

How did you come to the conclusion that the gravity is The One, and electricity is merely an alternative?

You're experiencing the universe as an electric signal, that reaches your brain, through the nerves in your body. You function with electricity, can you grasp that? Your eyes transform information hitting their retina, into electric signal, that goes to your brain, in the darkness of your skull, where it is re-created as 'light', 'color', 'shape', etc.

Quite right, after all who needs experts? All of this is easy.

What expertise?!!! There is no application for black holes, spacetime continuum, event horizons, gravity, quanta, anti-matter, and all that blabber, to require an expert in black holes!

You're talking about dudes who rot in universities, fabulating about event horizons, gravity waves in the fabric of spacetime continuum inside black holes of their mamas, while the Asians develop technologies based on electricity, so you can have a cheaper car, a cheaper computer, cellphone, appliances.

er.. but aren't you simply suggesting the substitution of one scientific theory (of electro-magneticism, say) for another (gravity)? And one authority (Tesla, Velikovsky etc) over Einstein, Hawking etc ?

No. I am suggesting for you to use your judgemnt, and verify as far as you can go, these theories. Go on, verify gravity, make experiments about gravity.
You'll realize that there is no way you can experiment with gravity, because it is in fact electricity - take a fcbvking balloon, rub it against your t-shirt, then proceed to attract stuff to its surface. That's "gravity"...

Tesla, certainly an interesting figure of some genius, has little to contribute in this modern dilemma, while one still remembers with a smile his supposedly receiving signals from another planet in his Colorado laboratory

that's what the man inside the tv told you about Tesla.

if you bother to google "Einstein infinitely superior spirit" you'll realize that Einstein believed in God, a non-christian God, but God nonetheless. Your Einstein was an occult religious freak, just like Newton with his alchemy works, which you so candidly deem ridiculous.

LOL

That is what you're saying - that unless one is a scientist, one can't understand science. And since you're not a scientist, you contradict yourself when you claim you know that the establishment's theory is correct.

But telling me that I am "a trance" a "sleeper" "indoctrinated" "slacking on a movie forum," or "a piece of meat merely aware of its existence. A lumbering robot. A machine without soul.

The theory you adhere to - Darwinian Evolution, considers man to be a lumbering robot - this is Richard Dawkins himself, whom I assume you hold in high regard.
Your establishment "scientist" Dawkins, uses the formula "Lumbering Robots". It is you who consider your self to be a lumbering robot.

I did not call you a lumbering robot. Your theory states that you are a piece of meat merely aware of its existence. A lumbering robot. A machine. No soul.

I think that you are sleeping, and you have to wake up from this lie they indoctrinated you with. This has nothing to do with the thread of -is the universe ruled by gravity or by electricity. I have not once used the argument "you are indoctrinated, therefore the electric universe is the right theory".

You being indoctrinated, is a separate discussion, from the -electricity or gravity? discussion.

reply

You're biased from the get go: You think in terms of "The Theory vs alternate theories"... How did you come to the conclusion that the gravity is The One, and electricity is merely an alternative?


I have already said that I am not saying that your preferred theories are not necessarily wrong and that the Standard Model needs fixing, with new theories expected as gravity has not yet been satisfactorily included. But since you have very kindly made such perceptive insights as

... Gravity, Black Holes and White Holes, Spacetime, Matter and Antimatter, Big Bang, Singularities, are religious gibberish ... How do you know that Einstein with his gravity is right, and Tesla with his electricity, is wrong ... How do you reconcile Tesla - electricity, with Einstein - gravity etc


It appears that you have been thinking of alternatives aplenty enough for us all, lol - and in fact this is all you have been advocating, together with a regular hectoring tone and mild insults when faced with reasonable criticisms.

You already view the establishment's theory, that the man inside the tv blasts you with


You have said this before, and you are still the one only offering links on this thread to a media channel - YooToob - as an authority, not I.

You're experiencing the universe as an electric signal, that reaches your brain, through the nerves in your body. You function with electricity, can you grasp that? Your eyes transform information hitting their retina, into electric signal, that goes to your brain, in the darkness of your skull, where it is re-created as 'light', 'color', 'shape', etc.


The brain creates light? Have you thought this through?

What expertise?!!! There is no application for black holes, spacetime continuum, event horizons, gravity, quanta, anti-matter, and all that blabber, to require an expert in black holes!


To take one example, quantum computers are due to become economical to manufacture within a few years.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm

and now is this where you say 'But they are powered by electricity!' ? lol

verify gravity, make experiments about gravity.


I would do; but I dropped my pencil and it fell right to the floor. However meantime:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/proof-of-cause-of-gravity.846/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, certainly an interesting figure of some genius, has little to contribute in this modern dilemma, while one still remembers with a smile his supposedly receiving signals from another planet in his Colorado laboratory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


that's what the man inside the tv told you about Tesla.


No, its what books and articles on Tesla have told me. Are you saying that these facts are not correct?

if you bother to google "Einstein infinitely superior spirit" you'll realize that Einstein believed in God, a non-christian God, but God nonetheless. Your Einstein was an occult religious freak, just like Newton with his alchemy works, which you so candidly deem ridiculous.


I am not sure why this is relevant, although your continued, off-hand dismissal of two of the greatest figures in science remains remarkable.

That is what you're saying - that unless one is a scientist, one can't understand science. And since you're not a scientist, you contradict yourself when you claim you know that the establishment's theory is correct.


It's a good job, then, that you are so obviously a working scientist to convincingly identify to us all where Newton and Einstein went wrong, is it not?

Darwinian Evolution, considers man to be a lumbering robot - this is Richard Dawkins himself, whom I assume you hold in high regard... Your establishment "scientist" Dawkins, uses the formula "Lumbering Robots". It is you who consider your self to be a lumbering robot.


Oh I see, now you've done Newton and Einstein, now Darwin and his followers are more grist to the mill? You are nothing if not ambitious lol. You certainly like the phrase 'lumbering robot', and you have used it a few times now. So, since I have a moment to waste, let us see: the quote is from The Selfish Gene. EG:

‘They [the genes] swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots’


If we are all 'lumbering robots' controlled by genes, then progress is not possible, we are one species like any other and, like any other, we will die out. This is – or was – a fairly mainstream and conventional version of Darwinian thought. But, in fact, Dawkins does not adhere to it, pointing out that our rationality make us different and, so that nothing may escape the evolutionary empire, he suggested the meme as a form of 'social gene' that propagated itself in a way akin to natural selection. So I would agree with Dawkins (without necessarily accepting the idea of 'memes' in full) that it is a reasonable hypothesis that human consciousness – if not rationality exactly – did represent a fundamental change in the world. Some people of course are more conscious that others, lol. I hope that helps, now the diversion is over and hopefully we can come back to main subject in hand.


Your theory states that you are a piece of meat merely aware of its existence. A lumbering robot. A machine. No soul.


It is not 'my theory'. And since it has come up, please provide evidence for the soul. I think a soul would be purple, rotate left to right, smell of bilberries and be caught in goldfish bowls by tempting it with rock candy. My evidence is the same as yours of course.

This has nothing to do with the thread of -is the universe ruled by gravity or by electricity.


Then I suggest that you stick with it lol, after all it is after all your hobby horse, not mine. But all of your distractions and diversions are noted.

I have not once used the argument "you are indoctrinated, therefore the electric universe is the right theory".


Then this was not you saying:

You fall even deeper into the pit of indoctrination: It is because the man inside the tv praises Einstein, and ignores Tesla - even though the tv works with electricity, not with gravity - that you decide that Einstein is right, and Tesla is wrong


you know, I think it was...

You being indoctrinated, is a separate discussion, from the -electricity or gravity? discussion.


Indeed it is, but it seems something you have to keep suggesting and is just another type of mild insult to demean another's mental independence is it not?


Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

The brain creates light? Have you thought this through?

Yes. All the brain processes, is electric impulses, from the nerves. What hits the eye's retina, is not "light", but an electromagnetic radiation.

The electromagnetic radiation is unlike what we call "color", "lightness", "darkness" or "shape" or "form". Therefore, the universe is not "dark" or "shiny" or "colorful" or "round" or "flat". These notions are only constructs of the mind.

You can "see" hydrogen as color, or as light, if only your brain (for the sake of the argument) would interpret hydrogen as light or color. Dogs or snakes or bats, "see" with smell or heat or sound. You wouldn't see a mouse in the garden during a night with the moon covered by clouds, because it's too "dark". For a snake, or a dog, or a bat, the mouse is perfectly "visible", shining with the brightness of a thousand suns.

You want more? When you're dreaming you see light, colors, shapes, even though your eyes are closed.

To take one example, quantum computers are due to become economical to manufacture within a few years

It's advertising... You can easily understand this by looking at the "levitation" toys - repulsing magnets marketed as "anti-gravity" toys. Or think of "anti-aging" cosmetics, or "eco-friendly" or "green" cars... yeah, right, cars that are friends with the squirrels, they play poker together...

I would do; but I dropped my pencil and it fell right to the floor.

Yes, for a person who has no understanding of physics, the pencil "dropped", but in reality, it was attracted by the Earth's electromagnetic field (or, as you call it - gravity).
That is why a rocket can easily escape Earth's pull after a mere 400km, while the Moon, 400 000km away, with billions of times more mass and inertia and speed, seems to be unable to escape, but neither does it fall to Earth, and together, into the Sun, billions times mores mass and inertia and stuff.

No, its what books and articles on Tesla have told me. Are you saying that these facts are not correct?

The books and articles on JFK have also told you that he was assassinated by Harvey Oswald, who got assassinated soon after. Then JFK's brother was assassinated also. I bet $500 you don't question that, either.

I am not sure why this is relevant, although your continued, off-hand dismissal of two of the greatest figures in science remains remarkable.

You don't think it's relevant that these greatest figures in the Establishment propaganda program were convinced that God created the universe?

Dawkins does not adhere to it

You really don't understand what the dude is saying, lol.

They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines
[...] What on earth do you think you are, if not a robot, albeit a very complicated one? - Dawkins

this is the ranting of an occult religious freak.

please provide evidence for the soul.

What is that which decides to move the body? Is it made of matter or energy or black holes or quanta?

reply

that's what the man inside the tv told you about Tesla.

if you bother to google "Einstein infinitely superior spirit" you'll realize that Einstein believed in God, a non-christian God, but God nonetheless. Your Einstein was an occult religious freak, just like Newton with his alchemy works, which you so candidly deem ridiculous.


Thank you

reply


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The brain creates light? Have you thought this through?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes.


That's very reassuring.

The electromagnetic radiation is unlike what we call "color", "lightness", "darkness" or "shape" or "form". Therefore, the universe is not "dark" or "shiny" or "colorful" or "round" or "flat". These notions are only constructs of the mind.

You can "see" hydrogen as color, or as light, if only your brain (for the sake of the argument) would interpret hydrogen as light or color. Dogs or snakes or bats, "see" with smell or heat or sound. You wouldn't see a mouse in the garden during a night with the moon covered by clouds, because it's too "dark". For a snake, or a dog, or a bat, the mouse is perfectly "visible", shining with the brightness of a thousand suns.

You want more?


Yes can you direct me to where your peer-reviewed research papers have appeared? I think you are onto something here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To take one example, quantum computers are due to become economical to manufacture within a few years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's advertising


Yeah, sure...

The first operating system for a quantum computer has been developed by researchers in Cambridge, signalling a significant step towards creating a practical version of the ultra powerful machines. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/first-quantum-computer-operating-system-developed-by-cambridge-researchers-1499667


for a person who has no understanding of physics


It is a good job we have people who do understand isn't it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, its what books and articles on Tesla have told me. Are you saying that these facts are not correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The books and articles on JFK have also told you that he was assassinated by Harvey Oswald, who got assassinated soon after. Then JFK's brother was assassinated also. I bet $500 you don't question that, either.


Interesting; but your observation was just another distraction and did not answer the questions about Tesla. Are you saying that I am wrong, and Tesla proved that he got messages from aliens (or, conversely he never claimed he did) and that, more critically, his 'transmitting tower', a demonstration of his theories, which supposedly utilised the earth as a dynamo, and which would project its electricity in unlimited amounts anywhere in the world, worked? If it proved itself, or even looked likely too why are governments not rushing to build them? Is this a cue for some conspiracy theory?

You don't think it's relevant that these greatest figures in the Establishment propaganda program were convinced that God created the universe?


Relevant to what? Your ideas on electricity? It seems to me that a supposed creator could have made either gravity or electro magnetism, and the existence of either does not have a bearing on the belief, or not, in that god. I am certainly not arguing for a lack of belief in a First Cause because of my scepticism about scientific claims. If you want to have a discussion about the religious or spiritual beliefs, or not, of leading scientific figures than that's OK with me, but you would be wise to pick your battles.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins does not adhere to it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You really don't understand what the dude is saying, lol.


Even when I patiently explained it to you? And, what is this but just another diversion from the course of this thread?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
please provide evidence for the soul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What is that which decides to move the body? Is it made of matter or energy or black holes or quanta?


It is deliberation working through consciousness, which itself is most likely an evolved strategy of complex organisms to best co ordinate and survive..



Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Are you saying that I am wrong

What I am saying is:

Earth went through great catastrophes in the past, including a mass flood.


reply

Earth went through great catastrophes in the past,


This I think we can agree on; the demise of the dinosaurs is an example of such.


including a mass flood.


Indeed again this something which can be agreed on and since early humans often lived near shorelines then clearly such events would loom large in their histories and myths; I would just have issue with a 'mass flood' being represented by a single inundation which eventually flooded the entire earth to the mountain tops, deliberately orchestrated by the supernatural.


Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

since early humans often lived near shorelines

Have you studied the myths at least one bit? No.

You have no knowledge of the myths, yet you have an explanation for them! What is your explanation? Uh, stuff that the man inside the tv told you, on History Channel. No biggie.

The Great Flood means stuff that deposits at the bottom of the seas, found at the top of the mountains!
The Great Flood was caused by an event that modified the tilt of the Earth, and slowed its rotation around the Sun. Waves miles high sweeping over the land. Earth's crust split open, between Africa and America.
America is the island "greater than Libya and Arabia together" in Plato's Atlantic ocean, that disappeared in the depths of the waters.

Plato, the father of the western knowledge, tells you that a land mass a lot bigger than Europe - Libya to the Greeks was the whole of known Africa, except Egypt - located west of Iberian peninsula, disappeared!

That is the result of a cataclysm a lot bigger than the screen of your tv!


You're simply stuck in the narrative given to you by the man in the tv, who omits information, and you'd rather die, than learn one bit about the myths by yourself! Ain't nobody got time for that!
Civilizations around the globe had a calendar of 360 days, from China to India to Babylon to Egypt, and then everybody had to make new calendars, of 365.25 days! The Sun rose in the West, and then it completely switched position, to rising in the East!

You haven't even read Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, innit? Go read the damn book, then come back to me, I'll wait for you, like Luke awaited for his prodigal son, Dark Vader.

reply

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.


Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favour by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfilment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omni beneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history...


I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvellous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)


It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.


What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.


The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.


I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.


- All said by Albert Einstein.



Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Have you studied the myths at least one bit? No.


Don't tell me what I have studied.


So early humans all congregated on mountain tops and in the deserts, then? And only remembered the floods which lapped around their feet at the summit or far inland LOL?

What is your explanation? Uh, stuff that the man inside the tv told you, on History Channel. No biggie.


The fact that early humans, after the dispersal out of Africa, were often to be found by the shoreline is not even recent news.. and as a fan of YooToob by way of substantiating authority for your theories constantly talking about the 'man inside the TV' does you no favours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5398850.stm
http://www.seeker.com/early-humans-were-skilled-deep-sea-fishermen-1766072005.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/oceans/locations/redsea/settlements.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6782/abs/405065a0.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2316128/Early-human-ancestors-aquatic-apes-Living-water-helped-evolve-big-brains-walk-upright.html

More specifically in connection with specific memories of cataclysmic events I am sure you are familiar with the Black Sea deluge hypothesis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

and the well understood mechanism of outburst floods more generally?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood

I am.

This is not to say that all issues are settled, or even that there is a consensus between archaeologists and geologists about everything but the point remains that there were enough early human settlements by the shore to, reasonably enough, make floods a matter of ongoing folk memory across a number of cultures.

But keep going...

The Great Flood means stuff that deposits at the bottom of the seas, found at the top of the mountains!


Oh I see, so you have never heard of the widely known geological process of mountains rising and falling over huge periods of time, then, meaning that which was once at sea level ends raised up? Fancy that. To be honest this 'evidence' of yours belongs with the most simplistic and unscientific fundamentalism, which at heart, is what one suspects your hostility to mainstream science is all about.

Plato, the father of the western knowledge, tells you that a land mass a lot bigger than Europe - Libya to the Greeks was the whole of known Africa, except Egypt - located west of Iberian peninsula, disappeared


Plato was not an eyewitness, and what he was actually referring to could be the well-known, and (regionally speaking) highly-destructive Santorini eruption of the mid-second millennium BCE. Also, I thought you helpfully told me that we don't need experts? Meantime even if one chooses not to believe conclusions from a whole range of disciplines after years of research, it might still serve be aware of their mutual conclusions, that

A world-wide deluge, such as described in Genesis, is incompatible with modern understanding of natural history, especially geology and paleontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth


----

You're simply stuck in the narrative given to you by the man in the tv


See above for my view on this reoccurring phrase of yours, YooToob is still not a university.

You haven't even read Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, innit? Go read the damn book


Wrong again. I have even read, in book form The Velikovsky Affair - Scientism vs Science, a PDF of which can be found here

http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/va_docs/va_1.pdf

- which is not entirely flattering to the traditional scientific establishment and so I am surprised that you haven't really mentioned it.

Meanhwile I can only repeat that, despite your fondness for left-of-field theories and disdain for the detailed and careful work by so many across a whole swathe of academic and scientific disciplines, Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia (often vociferously so) and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions.


Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Plato was not an eyewitness, and what he was actually referring to could be the well-known, and (regionally speaking) highly-destructive Santorini eruption of the mid-second millennium BCE.

Observe how our dialogue goes:

1. I give you quote from Plato's Timaeus - A landmass bigger than Ancient Lybia and Arabia combined, located west of Gibraltar strait, in the Atlantic ocean, vanishes.
2. Your explanation, copy-pasted from History channel - Santorini island, the size of a small city, located right inside the Greek sea in the east of the Mediterranean sea.

You simply don't process information, unless it's coming from the man inside the tv!

What am I to do at this point? Repeat to you ad nauseam, that a landmass the size of half of Africa located in the Atlantic ocean, is not a minuscule island in the Aegean sea?

Do I have to explain to you that neither were we eyewitnesses to the Roman Empire, yet we are certain it existed, 2000 years ago, before it vanished?

Tell me what would you do, if you were me.

reply

I give you quote from Plato's Timaeus - A landmass bigger than Ancient Lybia and Arabia combined, located west of Gibraltar strait, in the Atlantic ocean, vanishes.


As I already said, Plato's well-known account of Atlantis is not an eyewitness account and it has often been argued that it actually derived from volcanic, historical events closer to home. This may or may not be the case, but the evidence for Atlantis, or whatever one wants to call the Lost Continent that is supposed, is often fanciful especially as geological surveys as well as a wider understanding of the earth's plates, have not indicated a evidently suddenly submerged continental mass where Plato supposed.

Your explanation, copy-pasted from History channel - Santorini island, the size of a small city, located right inside the Greek sea in the east of the Mediterranean sea.


And the reason why this massively destructive eruption cannot be the origins of Plato's hearsay account is...


You simply don't process information, unless it's coming from the man inside the tv!


Remember what I have been saying about the irony of using such expressions when all you link to by way of authority are YooToob videos? I do.

What am I to do at this point? Repeat to you ad nauseam, that a landmass the size of half of Africa located in the Atlantic ocean, is not a minuscule island in the Aegean sea?


No, but you can link to an authoritative source as to why Plato's account cannot be based around the Santorini eruption and destruction, which was enough to destroy at least one neighbouring culture.. I see once again you are diverting away from the central theme of this thread, unless you believe that the world wide flood destroyed Atlantis and/or the whole supposed Lost Continent while leaving other land masses unscathed.

Do I have to explain to you that neither were we eyewitnesses to the Roman Empire, yet we are certain it existed, 2000 years ago, before it vanished?


The Roman Empire is not Atlantis.

Tell me what would you do, if you were me.


It is tempting and I thank you for the opportunity, but you know how I feel about ad hominems .

Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

As I already said, Plato's well-known account of Atlantis is not an eyewitness account
[...]
The Roman Empire is not Atlantis.

Plato wasn't an eyewitness to Troy, Britain, China, either. Yet modern scientists matched Plato's information, with what we know, so they were able to confirm Plato's claims that the British Island is located west of Gaul, even if he wasn't an eyewitness, as he never traveled to Britain, or India, for that matter.

You are only avoiding the matter: I provided you the original source: a landmass bigger than 1/2 of Africa, located west of Gibraltar strait, in the Atlantic ocean, can't be a tiny island located east of mainland Greece, in the Mediterranean sea.

it has often been argued that it actually derived from volcanic, historical events closer to home.

which requires to ignore the information provided by Plato, who stated: a landmass bigger than 1/2 of Africa, located west of Gibraltar strait, in the Atlantic ocean.


That is what I'm saying - that you ignore the original document - Plato's description of Atlantis as a landmass bigger than 1/2 of Africa, located west of Gibraltar strait, in the Atlantic ocean, that matches the North American continent, and you only give credence to what History channels tells you - about a tiny island east of mainland Greece, in the Mediterana.
You also most likely believe when History channel tells you that Vikings colonized North America in 1000ad, even tho History channel wasn't an eyewitness to the Viking landing...

You prefer to consider Plato an idiot - because only an idiot would mistake a tiny island, east of mainland Greece, in the Mediterranean sea, with a continent the size of 1/2 of Africa, west of European continent, in the Atlantic ocean.

Your way of processing information seems erroneous, to me. I bid you farewell here.

reply

Plato wasn't an eyewitness to Troy, Britain, China, either. Yet modern scientists matched Plato's information, with what we know, so they were able to confirm Plato's claims that the British Island is located west of Gaul, even if he wasn't an eyewitness, as he never traveled to Britain, or India, for that matter.


Which shows two things: you admit Plato wasn't an eyewitness, so: QED; and for some reason now here 'scientists' are to be taken as substantiating authorities when you have just spent the last few messages decrying the view of such authorities.

You are only avoiding the matter: I provided you the original source: a landmass bigger than 1/2 of Africa, located west of Gibraltar strait, in the Atlantic ocean, can't be a tiny island located east of mainland Greece, in the Mediterranean sea.


You quoted hearsay from an ancient source, which is not backed up by modern geological insights. Plato's account of Atlantis is a famous passage which, especially in comparison to the surrounding text, reads as different in nature to the thinker's regular style and purpose. Hence it is interesting for various reasons, but that does not mean it ought to be taken without question. But I am sure you really know this. If would like to be recommended a authoritative book which contains particular and convincing analysis of the issues concerned then let me know, I have one on my shelves at home.

you only give credence to what History channels tells you


Just as with YooToob, if I ever watched the History Channel I would not use that an authority either.

You prefer to consider Plato an idiot


This also incorrect. I actually studied Plato for two terms in the late 70's under Flew at Reading and wrote two or three considerations of his work for assessment.

Your way of processing information seems erroneous, to me. I bid you farewell here.


Translation: my arguments are getting thin and so I will bale out here lol.

Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply

Translation: my arguments are getting thin and so I will bale out here lol.

At this point we're stuck in a loop:

I maintain that Plato's "landmass more than half of Africa in size, located west of Europe in the Atlantic ocean" perfectly describes the North American continent.

You maintain that Plato's "landmass more than half of Africa in size, located west of Europe in the Atlantic ocean" describes a tiny island in the eastern Mediterranean sea.



reply

I maintain that Plato's "landmass more than half of Africa in size, located west of Europe in the Atlantic ocean" perfectly describes the North American continent.

You maintain that Plato's "landmass more than half of Africa in size, located west of Europe in the Atlantic ocean" describes a tiny island in the eastern Mediterranean sea.


No, I just say that Plato was not an eyewitness and that modern geology tells us that there is no evidence of such a landmass such as you describe having been submerged within ancient times. in that location. It is perfectly possible to make of out Plato's account a thrilling description of ancient Atlantis. And you clearly do. Also, it may be a surprise to you to learn that the North American continent has not lately sunk beneath the waves.



Yeah, just explain everything away with zero evidence kurt-2000

reply