I don't think it was rain. Check out the YouTube video on @RedTailHawk's profile.

The canonical account says that it was rain, alongside something a bit more mysterious: “When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the underground waters erupted from the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky. The rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights.”

Yes. Red Tail Hawk explains the physics of this water eruption.

Spoilerist

40-75 years to build the ark. Can you imagine all the people telling him he was insane?

he still had to build the arc. proof of work

A conspiracy is a secret illegal agreement between 2 or more people. A theory is something that can be independently verified, built on observations of reality.

No he wasn't, no it didn't. There was no global flood. That's impossible, and nothing more than myth.

It was a myth. The Egyptians and Chinese both kept good records and never mentioned a global flood. You know what else, the Egyptians have no records of Hebrew slaves either, the only mentions of the Hebrews in Egyptian records are employing the Hebrews as mercenaries against the Nubians and to break up and put down worker rebellions

Doesn't have to be a global flood for him to be right.

He was talking directly to God. If God was talking directly to you, you'd probably be more than certain that it wasn't for nothing.

Doesn't take long in that video to realize he's a complete and nutter and out of his mind.

Or he was a schizophrenic, I think that's more likely

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Or he didn’t exist, at all, and this is just a story made up by people for other people. It’s interesting that people grow out of believing in a tooth fairy, or Santa Claus, and can look at other cultures (both present and historical) with skepticism (about Ganesha or Zeus, etc.), but are completely unable to reflect on their own cherished religious fantasies like an adult.

The claim was a global flood so yeah it does have to be for him to be right

Probably my most favorite part of nostr is the discovery of other peers living with their eyes wide open. You would be a welcome addition to @Rock Paper Bitcoin dialogue and much of the "conspiracies" they've discussed on their show.

wait what? Santa is real!

If you listen to the video I suggested by Red Tail Hawk, you can explain all of Bill Nye's issues except the ability to craft such a ship. For what it's worth, we still don't know how the pyramids were built either, but they are still around so refuting their existence is much harder to do.

People who react to this with "well actually ...!!" still don't get that stories used to be told to teach people something in a time most people could not read. There is more than one life lesson in each story, and the stories are wild and impossible to make them enterntaining and therefor worth to be retold to later generations. Many people are getting laughed at because they are not understood but end up being correct. They did their own research. "Conspiracy theorist" was invented by CIA to smear people for thinking that JFK was killed by government. Insane, and now proven true... So the minority was equal to insane in the public eye because gov wanted to see it this way. This minority were the heroes who dared to speak out because of their moral values, regardless of how many uninformed people there were WISHING it not to be true. Some day people will look back and wish they also adopted bitcoin when they were made aware to it by their friend or family member. The bitcoin "conspiracy theorists" were right all along about the actual government and banking conspiracy to rob them from their savings.

I doubt people in his time even had a concept of global. He survived and everyone around him died. That's right enough for me.

Define extraordinary

Parallel society arc dev

Sorry but Bitcoin does not need this Abrahamic religious nonsense that will divide more than unite. If one does not understand the value of bitcoin, he better raise his IQ. No religion will save him.

What evidence do you have that this "Noah" even existed? It's also said that he lived to ~600 years old, do you believe that too? 🤔😆

No one should listen to anything that stoned lunatic says, he's out of his mind.

Even more concerning given that scripture is supposed to be the word of god and the story claims to have rounded up two of every animal on earth

Sounds like a child’s bedtime story

It's actually the opposite. God saves, The love and worship if Bitcoin is nothing more then the love of money.

Believe whatever it suits you and makes you feel better. I use philosophy. You use Judaism.

Bring receipts. I can support my perspective with plenty of science. Persist in your ignorance if you must.

Not a myth. The US Air Force has known what caused many global flood events since the 1940s.

To be fair, there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that should be taken literally however there's also a lot of stuff in the Bible that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. You might want to check out the declassified 1940s US Air Force research on the subject and the work of Charles Hapgood, Chan Thomas, Ken White, and Graham Hancock.

By the way, the lesson you are conveying in your OP is great insofar as it encourages people to seek answers. This is the lesson of the rich man being unlikely to pass through the eye of the needle. It's about open mindedness and paying the necessary costs to find answers.

There are so many things I could point out, but I'll just pick one. In the video (approximately in the middle) you mentioned this global flood happens repeatedly about every 6-7 thousand years. There is apparently no archaeological evidence of this. How do you explain that?

OK. After I address this one, please tell me where my presentation is wrong if you have other items as you suggest. Yes. 6-7 thousand years. Well, think about it. If what I'm saying is right, then there would be very little evidence of civilization prior to about 6000 years ago, right? That happens to be the case. The aCaDeMIc "consensus" is that there were no civilizations prior to the fertile crescent in Mesopotamia, right? So that would explain why there is very little evidence of anything beyond the most recent flood, for starters. Notice I said "very little evidence" whereas you said "apparently no archaeological evidence". What about the Piri Reis map showing unglaciated coastlines of Antarctica? What about the map projection method used suggestive of highly advanced mathematics on the part of whoever created the map which is apparently at least as old as...4000 BC which would be...6000 years ago...and according to the research I presented, we are currently experiencing a geomagnetic excursion as of ~1947 when the Air Force noticed that the magnetic north pole had made a dramatic shift in position relative to the previous 114 years of relative stability on Boothia Peninsula. What about Tiahuanaco? What about Gobekli Tepe? What about the erosion on the pyramids suggesting they spent a significant amount of time underwater experiencing parabolic wave erosion patterns? What about the aurora borealis we've had recently that were visible at record southerly latitudes in the northern hemisphere and record northerly latitudes in the southern hemisphere? We have the ongoing south Atlantic anomaly. We have seen increasing volatility in terms of major weather events which would make sense given that we know the strength of the magnetosphere has is decreasing at an accelerating pace. Earth's core recently shifted and began spinning in the opposite direction. There's plenty of evidence for this. The issue is that lots of that evidence COULD be explained in other ways and many people are simply not aware of the evidence. It's there though. It explains why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand. It explains why they put together the international seed back in Svalbard. They know that stuff in the Arctic circle is likely to wind up in a temperate zone after the next pole flip and temperate zones are where civilization will redevelop after the next flood.

*seed bank

Holy crap dude. You didn't have to write a damn book. Before I even get into addressing your comment, why not simply compose all this so-called evidence into a research paper? if you're right, collect your Nobel prize. You'd be world famous. " If what I'm saying is right..." Automatic fail by logical fallacy, you're assuming that you're right before you even begin. There's plenty of evidence of civilization prior to 6,000 years ago, cave paintings, Stone tools, skeletons found with jewelry attached, how we even know Chinese civilization had a written language at least 12,000 years ago, and they didn't write about anything resembling a worldwide flood. You do realize that a magnetic polar shift doesn't mean the Earth physically turns on its side, right? Earth's core started spinning in the other direction‽‽‽‽‽‽‽‽🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 No, it most certainly did not. "The issue is that lots of that evidence COULD be explained in other ways" You're so close, you're just so damn close right here. Understand Occam's razor my dude, when you do, you'll realize you're organizing the evidence to try and fit your fantastical conclusion. That's a mistake, you need to understand the evidence as clearly and unbiasedly as possible and draw conclusions based on that and nothing else. Also sometimes you need to be content with not knowing. Saying "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Regarding the purpose of the seed vault, wrong again:

1. I am writing a book. It may have to be multiple books because I have so much to cover. That said, yes, I do have to write a book BECAUSE there is so much to cover. When you are the ignorant one, you do not get to say how much there is to be covered. Also, stop moving the goalposts. You said there was no evidence. I offered you evidence so your response wasn't "Wow, Red, you're right. I hadn't considered those pieces of evidence." It was "to again criticize me but this time for countering your ignorant contention that there was apparently no archaeological evidence. When I do write the book, I don't expect you to read it. You clearly don't understand how Occam's razor applies. 2. "If what I'm saying is right..." What I'm getting out of your commentary on that is that you don't know how to do the Scientific Method. Scientists are interested in furthering their understanding of truth, right? Scientists, like any wise person, admit when they do not know something. When I use scientists, that's what I mean. There are plenty of people who LARP as scientists and might even have science degrees and background but because of their mindset, they are not truly engaging in the Scientific Method which makes them not truly scientists. A true scientist will thoroughly explore the theories of fellow scientists simply because the probability that they are correct is non-zero. Once the theory has been thoroughly explored, only then can the peer review be legitimate. You may have checked out my presentation, but I sincerely doubt you have done any deeper due diligence, chasing any of the sources I offered, which was the point of my presentation. There's too much information that is relevant to pile it all into one presentation. That's how one ought to explore theories but most people only look until they find something they disagree with, at which point cognitive dissonance sets in and invincible ignorance rules the day. So, yes, the correct way to look at Hinduism or Buddhism or Hapgood's theory or anything is to hear them out thoroughly first, due some deeper due diligence, and try to steel man their case. Steel manning, in some instances, means speculating upon the invalidity of counter-evidence. If the theory offers plausible explanations for dozens of mysteries but the theory is contradicted by 1 or 2 pieces of "knowledge", well, at that point, Occam's Razor dictates that we more closely inspect those 1 or 2 pieces of "knowledge" and see whether they are in fact "knowledge" or not. Clearly, that's not how you operate though. You don't try to steel man people's theories. That's why I told you to try looking at it from the "what it it's true" perspective. I had to tell you that because you don't do that. You only look from your own perspective and that's not how scientists learn anything. Furthermore, mathematicians will use assumptions to begin proofs seeking a logical contradiction along the way. It is common to begin something with "assume X is true..." then consider the logical dominos that would tip over as a result of that assumption. Your uncharitable interpretation of my adherence to the Scientific Method in the discussion of a scientific theory does not amount to a logical fallacy. 3. "You do realize that a magnetic polar shift doesn't mean the Earth physically turns on its side, right?" You do realize this sentence of yours is in no way a compelling argument, right? You do realize that this sentence of yours in no way refutes the evidence I presented in favor of this theory, right? 4. I spoke somewhat inaccurately there, you're right. The speed of the earth's core has slowed, suggesting an eventual deceleration to zero followed by the spinning of the core in the opposite direction.

Earth.com

Earth's inner core is rapidly changing and now "rotating backwards"

While Earth's inner core is often portrayed as static and solid, new details paint a very different picture.

That's just one article. Look it up. You'll find plenty of results to verify. 5. The fact that they say that's what the Svalbard seed bunker is for doesn't mean that's what it is for. You're presumably a Bitcoiner using NOSTR. If you believe that's why they built it, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Occam's razor says unnecessary assumptions should be avoided in theory construction. If you take the narrative I propose and you put a tally mark in the "pro" column for every weird thing that I point out in my presentation that the theory presented explains and then you put a tally mark in the "con" column for every new question that arises as a result of reassessment of prior beliefs, you will find that the pros drastically outweigh the cons. Do the math. Count em up. I've stacked receipts. You just want to dismiss them, which is weird. As a Bitcoiner, you should know better than anyone how incredibly bad the global population is at doing their due diligence. Even most Bitcoiners only did their due diligence because it was potentially profitable. It shouldn't be a shock to your system to learn that most people have had a distorted perspective of history and cosmology. Either way, thank you for your conversation. I will be using you as an example when I teach people about what is wrong with the world: a lack of honesty and receptivity dominated by ego and ignorance.

As real as Aphrodite, yes.

1. I feel bad for the poor saps who end up wasting their money on a book written by a conspiracy theorist, charlatan, and nutter. 2. I'll grant you this, you got balls. You presume to lecture others over the scientific method, yet? If anyone doesn't know how to use it, it's you. I see nothing in your rambling is about peer-reviewed research, no links to scientific papers, you're not published in any journal as far as I know or you would have cited it already. Real science is about making testable predictions, and having peers replicate your test and see if the conclusions match, forming a hypothesis, asking more questions, and then repeating the process until there can be only one possible explanation. This is a goal that can never actually be reached, but if you do it enough, you attain the status of theories like E=mc², F=ma, Evolution, etc. none of these use or rely on the Bible because it would be so faulty. Stories like the biblical flood are contradicted by mountains of evidence at every level from physics, to chemistry to biology. If you had actual evidence to the contrary, it would be so earth-shattering you would be the most famous person in history, but we both know that's not going to happen. Yes, a real scientist will explore the theories of his peers, but you are not a peer of any real scientist. A rocket scientist may think a child's cardboard space shuttle they made is adorable but they're not going to waste time perfecting the heat shield tiles for re-entry when it's never making it off the living room floor. Ever heard the phrase "you have to crawl before you can walk"? You haven't done any of the prerequisite work. Perhaps instead of worrying about me checking out YOUR presentation or running down YOUR sources, perhaps you should do a little more research about what other scientists say about this; or do you always disagree with the consensus just because it's the consensus? The "what if it's true perspective"? No one goes through life operating that way, not even you. I don't assume the laws of gravity stopped working just because "what if it's true". No one would have time to do anything else. If I wasted time entertaining alternative versions of F=ma I'd probably get hit by a bus. We operate mostly on probabilities. 3. You never presented any evidence for your ridiculous claim. 4. Yeah the headline there is a bit misleading. Perhaps in a few billion years it'll come to a stop. Although in roughly 5 billion years the sun will expand to a red giant and possibly engulf the earth so...🤷‍♂️ 5. Why would you assume the stated reason isn't true? Yes eventually there probably will be oceanfront property in Arizona, but that would be due to anthropomorphic climate change more than anything else. What does being a bitcoiner on nostr have to do with any of this? I got news for you dude, all these receipts you're stacking, they're all written in your own handwriting. You're in the same category as people who think the Earth is flat, aliens made the pyramids, or that there's a secret reptile base inside the Moon. It would be funny if it weren't so sad because someone's going to fall for your nonsense. Because of that I DON'T thank you for the conversation.

In my presentation I cite a number of scientific whitepapers. You have not asked me for any of those links nor have you dedicated 12 seconds to Google search for them. I HAVE provided them in other places. I shared plenty of evidence. You either failed to see/hear the evidence, to understand the theory and how the evidence IS evidence, or you are a dishonest troll. At this point, I'm inclined to see you as the latter. I know what cards I'm holding. I've got receipts. You've got cognitive dissonance. Have fun staying ignorant.

Let me know when you're giving a TED talk and I'll get my popcorn ready.

What are you trying to accomplish here Jimmy? Like logic aside, what is your intention? Is there something you would like to prove?

The crackpots aren't worth your time. Well, unless you enjoy it. But definitely don't expect to ever convince them of anything.