Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Artanthos t1_ixry9gn wrote

You can be as skeptical as you want, it doesn’t change well documented facts.

0

nybbleth t1_ixs8uyd wrote

Right, so now we're elevating unverified claims and conjecture made on the basis of interpreting vague stories by a handful of people to not just facts, but "well documented" facts.

Meanwhile, you simply ignore those empirical facts that show that even if you could somehow prove that the stories you're calling upon draw upon some sort of cultural memory dating back to the ice age, the actual flooding that happened at that period was gradual and took place over centuries or even thousands of years, thereby invalidating the conclusions you're drawing since flood mythology talks about a single cataclysmic flood, and not a slow process of much smaller floods.

Not to mention all the other arguments I've brought forth. You brought up the Sumerian Flood Creation Myth. Are you going to address the fact that said myth can only be traced back to 1600BC and that it doesn't seem to appear in other of their creation myths that we can date to much earlier? How does that documented fact not factor into your reasoning?

1

Artanthos t1_ixsxrdn wrote

The whole point, there has been verification.

The no longer existing islands have been found. The Inuit villages have been found.

And there was absolutely no way either people could have guessed. They remembered mostly accurate information through thousands of years of oral history.

0

nybbleth t1_ixv0nsh wrote

> The whole point, there has been verification.

So you say. I have yet to see you post a scientific paper on this matter, much less independent verification of the claims in it.

> And there was absolutely no way either people could have guessed

Says you. Again, I am not seeing any 'verification' that this claim is at all true.

1

Artanthos t1_ixv175l wrote

Go look it up yourself, you certainly won't believe anything I link.

0

nybbleth t1_ixvcbry wrote

I've tried. I've found exactly zero sources claiming inuit oral traditions have accurately pointed out villages lost by floods 10000 years ago.

Which face it, would be quite impressive since they weren't even around back then. The Inuit only formed a thousand years ago, which is when they came to occupy the area they now live in. Their ancestors lived in Alaska and Russia before that, so there's literally no way for them to have an oral tradition about villages lost 10,000 years ago in the area they now inhabit. Neither could they have adapted stories from the people that lived there before (the Dorset culture), since there appears to have been no contact between these groups. Nor would that matter if they had, because none of the paleo-eskimo seemed to have existed that far back. Humans only started living in the areas the Inuit now live 5000 years ago at the earliest. So obviously they can't have oral traditions about the area that date back twice as far.

This is clearly something you either made up entirely, something someone else made up, or a case of you misremembering something you read.

2