Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You consider this anti-religion? The theme of all the epic tales is redemption. Isn't the message important?Curious that this is anti-religion in this section. Is that permitted as an opening title?
Yes, it's anti-religion in that it's science explaining again, the origin of the bible's story. I can't do anything to change that fact and I doubt if you can either.You consider this anti-religion? The theme of all the epic tales is redemption. Isn't the message important?
You're opposed to science?Yes, it's anti-religion in that it's science explaining again, the origin of the bible's story. I can't do anything to change that fact and I doubt if you can either.
What science degrees do you possess?You're opposed to science?
It is not apparent whether they simply fail to understand that these diverse archaeological discoveries do not pertain to a single event or if they are callously suppressing information that does not conform to their preconceptions (for example, Halley, 1978, pp. 77-80).
You won't need a degree in science to understand this article.What science degrees do you possess?
Neither did the author.You won't need a degree in science to understand this article.
I hope you realize that this article refers to studies that are, at best, 50 years old.The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education
This is a discussion of the three Mesopotamian flood myths and evidence for each. It's interesting and not too difficult a read.
Is it no longer valid?I hope you realize that this article refers to studies that are, at best, 50 years old.
It probably isn't as technology has pushed forward and proven that almost all of the estimates 50 years ago and more were wrong.Is it no longer valid?
No, it’s not.Yes, it's anti-religion
From which university did you receive your science degree?No, it’s not.
Discussing facts and the truth as to the origins of myths and legends which form the foundation of religious dogma is not ‘anti-religion.’
Oh I read it and liked the fact that it discussed the findings of several archaeologists. I'm also a fan of Samuel Kramer's work since I started reading him in the 1980s. What's your problem exactly? Do you dispute the information or do you want to discourage anyone else from reading it? Or are you just attacking women the way Trump does?It probably isn't as technology has pushed forward and proven that almost all of the estimates 50 years ago and more were wrong.
You fell for the date of the article, proving...
YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE.
And don't hand me any of your bullshit that you read it.
Why don't you post some articles on cancer treatment from 1980 while you're at it?Oh I read it and liked the fact that it discussed the findings of several archaeologists. I'm also a fan of Samuel Kramer's work since I started reading him in the 1980s. What's your problem exactly? Do you dispute the information or do you want to discourage anyone else from reading it? Or are you just attacking women the way Trump does?
AGAIN---no world wide flooding. Local floodings all over the place. Nothing like the bible says, you silly half-witted little instigation.The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education
This is a discussion of the three Mesopotamian flood myths and evidence for each. It's interesting and not too difficult a read.
You must be an incel.Why don't you post some articles on cancer treatment from 1980 while you're at it?
I don't know if I should be annoyed with you or sympathetic that your mental capacity is so poor.
Why are you pretending to be some scientific guru here while spouting creationist BS? Carbon dating estimates have never proven horribly "wrong" -- even those done 70 or more years ago. Far from off by even a factor of 2, let alone 500 or whatever silliness you've been drinking.It probably isn't as technology has pushed forward and proven that almost all of the estimates 50 years ago and more were wrong.
You fell for the date of the article, proving...
YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE.
And don't hand me any of your bullshit that you read it.
