"A FLOOD of NONSENSE! - Global Flood or Mass Extinctions?"

[Miles]

.


A delightful explanation of why the notion of a global flood---the Noachian Flood---doesn't make any sense.




................



Question: Is any of what Forrest Valkai, the host, said, wrong? If so, what and why?


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #60]

When the information is more complete, the conclusions are closer to the truth. Scientific institutions have become means of profit rather than collectives of people seeking the truth. Wise people carefully analyze all the facts before accepting any conclusion.

Posting articles from the Watchtower! What do you expect them to say? Answers in Genesis have simlar nonsense, with the same bias (ie. anything that can possibly be misinterpreted to support the flood myth is put forth as some kind of "proof" that it happened). Wikipedia have a short article on the Ghar Dalem cave and nothing unusual about it. Some of the animals found in the cave did live on the island but have since become extinct, and some in an associated local museum (eg. deer, elephant) were not found in the cave but brought in. It is common for river floods and other local events to transport bones and sediments and mix them up. Happens all the time. Nothing unusual about this cave, and it certainly does not support a global flood!

And how does finding human existence on the island as early as 7400 years ago line up with your imaginary flood myth from only 4400 years ago? Presumably there would be evidence of some drastic interruption in the human presence on Malta during the "flood", but of course there isn't ... just like there is no evidence for any interruption of human existence anywhere else on Earth 4400 years ago (or any evidence of any kind that supports a global flood at that time).

[Eloi]

[Replying to Eloi in post #60]

When the information is more complete, the conclusions are closer to the truth. Scientific institutions have become means of profit rather than collectives of people seeking the truth. Wise people carefully analyze all the facts before accepting any conclusion.

Posting articles from the Watchtower! What do you expect them to say? ...

Fallacies. Nothing about the information but about the source.

What else do you expect them to say?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #62]

Nothing about the information but about the source.

Correction. Most of my post was about the information (did you read beyond the first sentence?). References from sources that have a clear and well advertised bias towards a particular view are not useful, as they will only present their biased opinions. Watchtower is a JW publication, not an unbiased source, and they often publish stuff that contradicts accepted science (for example, both of the articles you linked to). There is nothing unusual about the cave in Malta you brought up, and it in no way supports a global flood 4400 years ago.

[Eloi]

Did you just say "References from sources that have a clear and well advertised bias towards a particular view are not useful, as they will only present their biased opinions"?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #64]

Did you just say "References from sources that have a clear and well advertised bias towards a particular view are not useful, as they will only present their biased opinions"?

I typed that ... yes. This is the Science and Religion section, and I'm arguiing from the science side where things are (or should be) unbiased. Data, observations, measurements, etc. are what dictate the results ... not some predefined bias or myth from a holy book that has to be defended at all costs even with overwhelming evidence against it (eg. Noah's flood). Are you suggesting that the Watchtower isn't biased towards JW views and beliefs, and that this isn't widely known and advertised? The bias there is not a secret.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Eloi in post #64]

Did you just say "References from sources that have a clear and well advertised bias towards a particular view are not useful, as they will only present their biased opinions"?

I typed that ... yes. This is the Science and Religion section, and I'm arguiing from the science side where things are (or should be) unbiased. Data, observations, measurements, etc. are what dictate the results ... not some predefined bias or myth from a holy book that has to be defended at all costs even with overwhelming evidence against it (eg. Noah's flood). Are you suggesting that the Watchtower isn't biased towards JW views and beliefs, and that this isn't widely known and advertised? The bias there is not a secret.

THAT is a biased opinion. It isn't useful.

Actually, under the same premise, nothing an apologist for evolution says is reliable.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #66]

THAT is a biased opinion. It isn't useful.

It is a biased opinion that the Watchtower is biased towards JW views? Sure ... good luck selling that one.

Actually, under the same premise, nothing an apologist for evolution says is reliable.

Well, they sure are winning the battle against creationists aren't they? The number of people who actually believe humans were "created" ~6000 years has to be negligible these days ... there is just too much evidence against such a ridiculous scenario for many people to believe it in the 21st century.

[Eloi]

... they sure are winning the battle against creationists ...

That's funny.

What a scientist should be concerned with is discovering the truth ...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #68]

What a scientist should be concerned with is discovering the truth ...

Exactly ... this is what killed creationism and global flood myths, flat Earth, and countless other tall tales as far as their being true. Science discovered the truth and it replaced these outdated and demonstrably wrong ideas (for the good of all of us).

[The Barbarian]

The issue is the assumption of a global flood, which is not found in scripture.