Noah's Ark...

[Drawz]

There are myriad reasons not to accept the story of Noah's Ark as fact.

But, in this thread I just want to address one.

So, for those who contend that the story is true as written, I have one question:
how did the deer survive after Noah released all the animals after the Flood was over?

According to the Bible there were either two or fourteen deer on the Ark. Once they were released, along with all the carnivores, how did they mange to avoid those carnivores long enough to stay alive and maintain their species?

And if they did avoid those carnivores, then what did the meat eaters subsist on while their prey were rebuilding their population to a point where the carnivores could prey on them without killing off the species?

[CID_0687]

If you're going to ask a question trying to debunk something from the Bible it's best to have your facts correct.

There would not have been 14 of any animal on the Ark...2 of every unclean, and 7 of every clean animal. Now, whether or not the deer is considered a clean animal I do not know, as I'm not familiar with Jewish Dietary Laws...

And, if the story is indeed true...which I believe it is, as I believe everything in the Bible to be...do you not think that God already had this figured out?...they obviously weren't eaten on the Ark...so, He must have made the carnivores be herbivores for that 40 days...and I would imagine He kept it that way until the populations of each animal were replenished.

[Samm]

There are myriad reasons not to accept the story of Noah's Ark as fact.

But, in this thread I just want to address one.

So, for those who contend that the story is true as written, I have one question:
how did the deer survive after Noah released all the animals after the Flood was over?

According to the Bible there were either two or fourteen deer on the Ark. Once they were released, along with all the carnivores, how did they mange to avoid those carnivores long enough to stay alive and maintain their species?

And if they did avoid those carnivores, then what did the meat eaters subsist on while their prey were rebuilding their population to a point where the carnivores could prey on them without killing off the species?

I have a better question... how did the Kiwi birds get to New Zealand? ;)

[BrittleBullet]

If you're going to ask a question trying to debunk something from the Bible it's best to have your facts correct.

There would not have been 14 of any animal on the Ark...2 of every unclean, and 7 of every clean animal. Now, whether or not the deer is considered a clean animal I do not know, as I'm not familiar with Jewish Dietary Laws...

And, if the story is indeed true...which I believe it is, as I believe everything in the Bible to be...do you not think that God already had this figured out?...they obviously weren't eaten on the Ark...so, He must have made the carnivores be herbivores for that 40 days...and I would imagine He kept it that way until the populations of each animal were replenished.

How did the plants survive the flood?

[TheRealBigDaddy]

If you're going to ask a question trying to debunk something from the Bible it's best to have your facts correct.

There would not have been 14 of any animal on the Ark...2 of every unclean, and 7 of every clean animal. Now, whether or not the deer is considered a clean animal I do not know, as I'm not familiar with Jewish Dietary Laws...

And, if the story is indeed true...which I believe it is, as I believe everything in the Bible to be...do you not think that God already had this figured out?...they obviously weren't eaten on the Ark...so, He must have made the carnivores be herbivores for that 40 days...and I would imagine He kept it that way until the populations of each animal were replenished.

I'm not Jewish, but deer are clean....they "chew the cud", etc.

[StoneScratcher]

I'm not Jewish, but deer are clean....they "chew the cud", etc.

So what was eaten is eaten again...:think:

[DuckSoupe]

Listen folks, stories over the centuries have changed and changed. Written and re-written. You all must know even among a few friends , something said is changed many times. It was probably Noah and maybe a goat and his wife in a boat he had designed to just about float. But he got the message to do so I believe from God or the supreme energy in the Universe.

[StoneScratcher]

The Epic of Gilgamesh

On line (partially):

http://books.google.com/books?id=_F-KlrmSe8QC&dq=tale+of+gilgamesh&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=rGKmSqvnC5ad8Qakr4ntDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11#v=onepage&q=tale%20of%20gilgamesh&f=false

[Thor]

And, if the story is indeed true...which I believe it is, as I believe everything in the Bible to be...do you not think that God already had this figured out?...they obviously weren't eaten on the Ark...so, He must have made the carnivores be herbivores for that 40 days...and I would imagine He kept it that way until the populations of each animal were replenished.

So, reality conflicts with your holy book and you have no answer for a good question, so you just make something up out of thin air. Hard to argue with this kind debating tactic.

[gdoane]

How did the plants survive the flood?

Seeds are pretty tough. Most plants fully and totally expect, even want their seeds to be eaten. That's why fruits are so brightly colored, so as to attract the attention of a hungry animal who will eat of the fruit and then go away and since what goes in must come out, the seeds are planted far, far away from the parent plant who really doesn't want the kids competing for water, sunlight and food.

[Drawz]

If you're going to ask a question trying to debunk something from the Bible it's best to have your facts correct.

There would not have been 14 of any animal on the Ark...2 of every unclean, and 7 of every clean animal. Now, whether or not the deer is considered a clean animal I do not know, as I'm not familiar with Jewish Dietary Laws...

And, if the story is indeed true...which I believe it is, as I believe everything in the Bible to be...do you not think that God already had this figured out?...they obviously weren't eaten on the Ark...so, He must have made the carnivores be herbivores for that 40 days...and I would imagine He kept it that way until the populations of each animal were replenished.

The rain lasted for forty days. The Flood lasted about a year.
Even if God miracled the carnivores into herbivores, there are very few plants that could survive a year underwater with no sunlight.

[StoneScratcher]

I have a better question... how did the Kiwi birds get to New Zealand? ;)

How did liberals get to New Zealand? :think:

[Greyclouds]

Seeds are pretty tough. Most plants fully and totally expect, even want their seeds to be eaten. That's why fruits are so brightly colored, so as to attract the attention of a hungry animal who will eat of the fruit and then go away and since what goes in must come out, the seeds are planted far, far away from the parent plant who really doesn't want the kids competing for water, sunlight and food.

Not all seeds are tough, and even a forty day period floating on salt water might dessicate them to the point of death. Acidic conditions of the stomach are far different than the high salt of the ocean.

[chip]

Why wasnt this posted in the religion forum?

Im betting I know why.

[gdoane]

Not all seeds are tough, and even a forty day period floating on salt water might dessicate them to the point of death. Acidic conditions of the stomach are far different than the high salt of the ocean.

Rain is a desalinization process.

The ship I sailed on used the evaporative process to make drinking water from the ocean water. Basically it took filtered ocean water, and pumped it into a vacuum chamber (water boils/evaporates at lower temperatures in vacuum) and then used condensor coils, refrigerated coils to turn the gaseous water back into liquid, without the salt. The water was collected in a gravity tank under the coils.

Rain works the same way, which is why even though hurricanes come from the ocean, they don't rain salt water. Flood waters would not be salty.

[doodle5]

DO YOUR RESEARCH!!

There are Bible Scholars that give detailed information about this subject!! He took a group where the exact wood is and has been proven.

John W Montgomery Amazon has it.

Carlene

[Drawz]

Why wasnt this posted in the religion forum?

Im betting I know why.

I'm betting you probably do.
It's posted here so that I can call the story the riduculous fiction that it is without violating the special rules of the RF.

[Thor]

Rain is a desalinization process.

The ship I sailed on used the evaporative process to make drinking water from the ocean water. Basically it took filtered ocean water, and pumped it into a vacuum chamber (water boils/evaporates at lower temperatures in vacuum) and then used condensor coils, refrigerated coils to turn the gaseous water back into liquid, without the salt. The water was collected in a gravity tank under the coils.

Rain works the same way, which is why even though hurricanes come from the ocean, they don't rain salt water. Flood waters would not be salty.

The rain would not be salty, but the oceans would certainly remain salty.

[Greyclouds]

Rain is a desalinization process.

The ship I sailed on used the evaporative process to make drinking water from the ocean water. Basically it took filtered ocean water, and pumped it into a vacuum chamber (water boils/evaporates at lower temperatures in vacuum) and then used condensor coils, refrigerated coils to turn the gaseous water back into liquid, without the salt. The water was collected in a gravity tank under the coils.

Rain works the same way, which is why even though hurricanes come from the ocean, they don't rain salt water. Flood waters would not be salty.

Um, no. Evaporation would not reduce the salinity of the ocean in this way, especially if the sealevel ROSE to flood the earth for the length of time indicated by the story.

Rain waters that would increase the sea level (resulting in a world-wide "flood") would reduce the amount of salinity of the ocean as a whole, but not by a significant amount. The ocean is approximately 3.5% sodium chloride (discounting all other salts). Given that the ocean encompasses 1.97 billion cubic kilometers (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml), you'd need to dilute the ocean by a factor of 1/10 AT LEAST to reach a salinity needed by freshwater organisms to survive a little while (that's one ocean volume in 9 volumes of fresh water).

The ocean encompasses about 95% of all water on the planet.


Oh, and atmospheric water would not suffice in raising water levels to flood-like conditions. This is because the atmosphere contains only 0.001% of all water on the Earth. Someone else has done the calculations for me at this website (http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.com/art/a-12-noah-flood-science.htm) and has shown that in the absence of a literal "firmament" (which would have disrupted our space flights), atmospheric discharge of all water vapor would only increase the sea level by ~3 centimeters.

So, the Noah story requires incredible feats of divine intervention by God to be literal truth, or it can be accepted as a figurative tale that has been morphed from the original accounts of a prepared ancient traveler who saved his family from a local flood thousands of years ago.

[chip]

I'm betting you probably do.
It's posted here so that I can call the story the riduculous fiction that it is without violating the special rules of the RF.

Thanks for admitting you werent looking for actual debate on the subject, you were just looking for a venue to take pot shots at Christians.

[Greyclouds]

Thanks for admitting you werent looking for actual debate on the subject, you were just looking for a venue to take pot shots at Christians.

Are Christians the exclusive owners of this portion of the Torah? :think:

Also, are all Christians literal believers of this story?

[gdoane]

The rain would not be salty, but the oceans would certainly remain salty.

Salt water has a higher specific gravity (weighs more) than fresh water does so salt water would stay lower and fresh water would float above. For the same reason ice floats.

[Beccaria]

There are myriad reasons not to accept the story of Noah's Ark as fact.

But, in this thread I just want to address one.

So, for those who contend that the story is true as written, I have one question:
how did the deer survive after Noah released all the animals after the Flood was over?

According to the Bible there were either two or fourteen deer on the Ark. Once they were released, along with all the carnivores, how did they mange to avoid those carnivores long enough to stay alive and maintain their species?

And if they did avoid those carnivores, then what did the meat eaters subsist on while their prey were rebuilding their population to a point where the carnivores could prey on them without killing off the species?
The animals and Noah remained on the ark for some time after the flood waters began to subside. It is not impossible to believe that plant life flourished after the subsiding of waters. Nor is it impossible to consider that Noah may have preserved some plant life aboard the ark for the purpose of a food source.

You'd be surprised at how durable plant life can be, particularly with regard to seeds.

Maybe you should consider that God really is God, instead of trying to fit Him into your limited, dehumanizing humanist mold

[Thor]

Salt water has a higher specific gravity (weighs more) than fresh water does so salt water would stay lower and fresh water would float above. For the same reason ice floats.

Not true. When rain or river water hits the ocean it mixes with the salt water. It does not "float above" the salt water. Take a glass of salty water, then pour in some fresh water. By your theory, the fresh water should float to the top. But if you take a straw and sip the water from the surface you will find that the water is salty.

[chip]

Are Christians the exclusive owners of this portion of the Torah? :think:

Also, are all Christians literal believers of this story?


Where did I claim they were?

[Greyclouds]

Salt water has a higher specific gravity (weighs more) than fresh water does so salt water would stay lower and fresh water would float above. For the same reason ice floats.

COMPLETELY different reasons for ice floating! Ice is water below a certain TEMPERATURE threshold! Below 4 degrees C, yes, water has a lower specific gravity and floats in a solid form.

The salt content of water comes from dissociated ions in an aqueous phase. These ions are NOT inhibited from entering water of the same temperature. They are ONLY excluded when the water becomes cold enough to actually become a solid.

Unless you're now going to claim that the Bible also mentions a flash freeze at the same time as the flood... in which case, the ark would surely have struck ice and drowned everyone inside.

[Thor]

The animals and Noah remained on the ark for some time after the flood waters began to subside. It is not impossible to believe that plant life flourished after the subsiding of waters. Nor is it impossible to consider that Noah may have preserved some plant life aboard the ark for the purpose of a food source.


And how much plant life would be required to feed thousands of animals for nearly a year? The idea that they could have stored sufficient food on board the ark is simply ridiculous. Not to mention that caring for all these animals would have been a task that 8 people could not have handled. Let's say there were 5,000 animals on the ark (a low figure; there are approximately 5,000 species of mammals alone). This would require each person to care for 625 animals per day (feeding, cleaning stalls, etc.). This works out to 26 animals per hour, or one every 2.3 minutes, 24 hours a day, without rest. An impossible task.

[Greyclouds]

The animals and Noah remained on the ark for some time after the flood waters began to subside. It is not impossible to believe that plant life flourished after the subsiding of waters. Nor is it impossible to consider that Noah may have preserved some plant life aboard the ark for the purpose of a food source.

You'd be surprised at how durable plant life can be, particularly with regard to seeds.

Pour a cup of salt water over a houseplant (warning, only do this for plants that you do not like!). That houseplant, if it dies over the course of a couple of days, would not have survived the flood. Also consider that many perennials resprout via bulbs that would be dessicated by salt water.


Maybe you should consider that God really is God, instead of trying to fit Him into your limited, dehumanizing humanist mold

I have never heard of a dehumanizing humanist mold...

[Greyclouds]

Where did I claim they were?

You said that he was attacking Christians. I was simply wondering if you believed that this story was critical to the Christian ethos.

[StoneScratcher]

The "Deluge tablet" (tablet 11) of the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Epic:of:Gilgamesh.htm) in Akkadian (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Akkadian:language.htm) The Great Flood, the Universal Deluge involving Noah (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Noah.htm) in Genesis (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Genesis.htm) or Utnapishtim (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Utnapishtim.htm) in the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Epic:of:Gilgamesh.htm), is a widespread but not universal theme in myth (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Myth.htm). A large percentage of the world's cultures have stories of a "great flood", though the story of Noah (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Noah.htm) and his ark (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Noah:s:Ark.htm) in Genesis (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Genesis.htm), the first book in the Bible (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Bible.htm), is probably the best known. The other well known flood story occurs in Hinduism (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Hinduism.htm), in the Puranas (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Puranas.htm) scriptures.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Deluge:mythology.htm

[Greyclouds]

The "Deluge tablet" (tablet 11) of the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Epic:of:Gilgamesh.htm) in Akkadian (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Akkadian:language.htm) The Great Flood, the Universal Deluge involving Noah (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Noah.htm) in Genesis (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Genesis.htm) or Utnapishtim (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Utnapishtim.htm) in the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Epic:of:Gilgamesh.htm), is a widespread but not universal theme in myth (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Myth.htm). A large percentage of the world's cultures have stories of a "great flood", though the story of Noah (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Noah.htm) and his ark (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Noah:s:Ark.htm) in Genesis (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Genesis.htm), the first book in the Bible (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Bible.htm), is probably the best known. The other well known flood story occurs in Hinduism (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Hinduism.htm), in the Puranas (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Puranas.htm) scriptures.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Deluge:mythology.htm

Are you trying to verify the story through its main theme's ubiquitous presence in other religions?

[Nik Notorious]

Are you trying to verify the story through its main theme's ubiquitous presence in other religions?


Sounds like the "but everyone is saying it, so it must be true" defense. I haven't heard the argument yet that can penetrate it. :)

[chip]

You said that he was attacking Christians. I was simply wondering if you believed that this story was critical to the Christian ethos.

I think a Christian would certainly need to examine why they wouldnt believe it since Christ said it happened.

[StoneScratcher]

Are you trying to verify the story through its main theme's ubiquitous presence in other religions?

Makes some wonder how so many have flood stories so similar throughout the globe.

The fact is that so many do have similar flood stories around the globe.

Lots of theories why though which all revolve around some flood that actually happened.

Unless, of course, the "flood" is symbolic representation of the Milky Way flooding the sky with stars...:think: But that's another theory.

[StoneScratcher]

Sounds like the "but everyone is saying it, so it must be true" defense. I haven't heard the argument yet that can penetrate it. :)

Good thing you're not translating clay tablets for their true meanings, because you're wrong.:rolleyes:

[Greyclouds]

Makes some wonder how so many have flood stories so similar throughout the globe.

The fact is that so many do have similar flood stories around the globe.

Lots of theories why though which all revolve around some flood that actually happened.

Unless, of course, the "flood" is symbolic representation of the Milky Way flooding the sky with stars...:think: But that's another theory.

Even if that was the symbolism behind the story in all of the cultures in which it pervades, it would be factually incorrect.

The milky way was formed more than 4 billion years before the emergence of man. How do we know this? Some of the stars are millions if not billions of light years away from us.

[StoneScratcher]

Even if that was the symbolism behind the story in all of the cultures in which it pervades, it would be factually incorrect.

The milky way was formed more than 4 billion years before the emergence of man. How do we know this? Some of the stars are millions if not billions of light years away from us.

Do you know if you ran with a flashlight, as fast as the speed of light, you'd be in darkness?

[Nik Notorious]

Good thing you're not translating clay tablets for their true meanings, because you're wrong.:rolleyes:

No, I'm pretty sure I'm right. In fact I know I am. The clay tablets told me so.

[StoneScratcher]

No, I'm pretty sure I'm right. In fact I know I am. The clay tablets told me so.

Good for you. Now find the columns.

[livefreeordie]

I have a better question... how did the Kiwi birds get to New Zealand? ;)

How in the hell does any species not show an EXTREME genetic bottleneck if said flood occurred ~4500 years ago. This should be abundantly obvious in the genetic record.

[livefreeordie]

How did liberals get to New Zealand? :think:

Swam from the convict colonies of course.

[livefreeordie]

And how much plant life would be required to feed thousands of animals for nearly a year? The idea that they could have stored sufficient food on board the ark is simply ridiculous. Not to mention that caring for all these animals would have been a task that 8 people could not have handled. Let's say there were 5,000 animals on the ark (a low figure; there are approximately 5,000 species of mammals alone). This would require each person to care for 625 animals per day (feeding, cleaning stalls, etc.). This works out to 26 animals per hour, or one every 2.3 minutes, 24 hours a day, without rest. An impossible task.

Lets not forget that you are taking care sizes ranging from mice to elephants, not to mention carnivores who, believe it or not require quite a bit of prep time to feed. Tossing in a whole zebra would be a bad idea just because a horse and 2 lions in a small space means everyone loses, even if they slaughtered animals before hand feeding big cats for a year is going to require some diatary "help". Keeping even 2 lions, 2 tigers, 2 bears, 2 mountain lions, 2 Cheetahs and 2 bobcats alive (not healthy, just alive) for a year would require tons and tons and tons of meat. If that meat is going to be kept alive then you also have to feed it and care for it, if that meat is going to be butchered and stored then please explain to me how Noah could keep meat in the Middle East a few thousand years before the advent of refrigeration.

There are just too many holes big enough to drive a truck through for this to be real. This is why so few Christians use Noah's Ark as an evangelism tool.

[StoneScratcher]

York Manuscript No. 1, written about A.D. 1600: "Before Noah flood there was a
man called Lamech as is written in the Scriptures in ye Chatr of Genesis And
this Lamech had two wives ye one named Adah by whome he had two sons ye one
named Jabell ye other named Jubell And his other wife was called Zillah by whome
he had one son named Tubelcaine & one Daughter named Naamah & these four
children founded ye beginnings of all ye Sciences in ye world viz Jabell ye
oldest Sone found out ye Science of Geomatre he was a keepr of flocks and sheep
Lands in the Fields as it is noted in ye Chaptr before sd And his bother Jubell
found ye Science of Musicke Song of the Tongue harpe & organ And ye third
brother Tuball Caine found ye Science called Smith Craft of Gold Silvr Iron
Coppr & Steele & ye daughter found ye ara of Weaving And these persons knowing
right well yt God would take vengencance for sinne either by fire or water
wherefore they writt their severall Sciences yt they had found in two pillars of
stone yt might be found aftr Noah his Flood And ye one stonbe would not burn wth
fire & ye othr called Lternes because it would not dround wth wtr etc."

The word here spelled "Lternes" is rendered on other old Constitutions as
"laterns," usually translated "brick." But marble does not resist fire; brick -
especially early unscientifically vitrified brick - does not resist water. If
the word be considered a perversion of "latten," which means brass or bronze,
then the ancient legendary pillars are made of metal and marble, a more sensible
idea, since metal would resist fire, and the marble, water.

http://skirret.com/library/archive/stb/Stb1935-09.html

[Greyclouds]

How in the hell does any species not show an EXTREME genetic bottleneck if said flood occurred ~4500 years ago. This should be abundantly obvious in the genetic record.

Bingo. We'd only see, at max, 4-5 alleles per gene family in all species alive on the planet. We see alot more diversity than would belie a "two animal" common ancestry that recent in Earth's history.

[Drawz]

Thanks for admitting you werent looking for actual debate on the subject, you were just looking for a venue to take pot shots at Christians.

What I'm looking for is a straightforward answer to my question that doesn't involve inventing miracles that are not contained in the story.

[Thor]

What the believers need to explain has been touched upon with the question about kiwis.

If the ark story is true, then every living creature stepped off a boat marooned on a mountain in Turkey. How is it, then, that the ONLY place you find kangaroos is in Australia? Are we to believe the kangaroos got off the boat and they all hopped across two continents and an ocean? What about tortoises that are only found on certain islands in the Pacific? How about prairie dogs that are only found in North America? If the ark story is true, we should expect to find populations of these animals living, at a minimum, on the same CONTINENT the ark supposedly ran aground. But we don't.

[Samm]

Salt water has a higher specific gravity (weighs more) than fresh water does so salt water would stay lower and fresh water would float above. For the same reason ice floats.

I have read that in the day of the square sail, sailors would dip buckets into the sea miles off the mouth of the Amazon River to get drinking water.

[StoneScratcher]

What the believers need to explain has been touched upon with the question about kiwis.

If the ark story is true, then every living creature stepped off a boat marooned on a mountain in Turkey. How is it, then, that the ONLY place you find kangaroos is in Australia? Are we to believe the kangaroos got off the boat and they all hopped across two continents and an ocean? What about tortoises that are only found on certain islands in the Pacific? How about prairie dogs that are only found in North America? If the ark story is true, we should expect to find populations of these animals living, at a minimum, on the same CONTINENT the ark supposedly ran aground. But we don't.

What if the "ark" in all these flood stories, really means the planet Earth? :think:

[Drawz]

What the believers need to explain has been touched upon with the question about kiwis.

If the ark story is true, then every living creature stepped off a boat marooned on a mountain in Turkey. How is it, then, that the ONLY place you find kangaroos is in Australia? Are we to believe the kangaroos got off the boat and they all hopped across two continents and an ocean? What about tortoises that are only found on certain islands in the Pacific? How about prairie dogs that are only found in North America? If the ark story is true, we should expect to find populations of these animals living, at a minimum, on the same CONTINENT the ark supposedly ran aground. But we don't.
Even the folks at answersingenisis who normaly try to give naturalistic answers regarding things in the Bible are forced to resort to the "God did it" explaination. Though they're very long winded about it.

[Drawz]

What if the "ark" in all these flood stories, really means the planet Earth? :think:

God instructed Noah to build the planet Earth out of gopher wood?

[Samm]

Do you know if you ran with a flashlight, as fast as the speed of light, you'd be in darkness?
That is contrary to Einstein's theory.

[CID_0687]

So, reality conflicts with your holy book and you have no answer for a good question, so you just make something up out of thin air. Hard to argue with this kind debating tactic.
The majority of things that are faith based are dealt with in the spiritual and the supernatural...That's why it's called faith and not science.

[StoneScratcher]

That is contrary to Einstein's theory.

Really? I can't figure this out. Why? I thought, though, if you ran as fast as the speed of light, you'd be with the light and in darkness because you'd be at the same point of light.

And if you ran faster than the speed of light, you'd be in front of the light, because you'd be after the point of light and the light would come back and hit you on the back of the head.

So, if you are faster, light is behind you, measured in millions of lightyears based on the amount of speed you are going times the speed of light.

This means, if you measure the distance of stars, as being millions of lightyears away from you, you could be actually seeing the light which is SLOWER than you had originally travelled and it is now catching up with you from behind (although you are facing it now).

:think: I think I've given myself a headache. Please correct me, if need be. Thanks!

[StoneScratcher]

God instructed Noah to build the planet Earth out of gopher wood?

"Gopher" means to "house in", is only used once in the KJV Bible.

It's thought to suggest a cypress, this "gopher". I wonder why they chose to say "gopher" wood.

Anyway, good point. Now on to the pitch...:think:

[Samm]

COMPLETELY different reasons for ice floating! Ice is water below a certain TEMPERATURE threshold! Below 4 degrees C, yes, water has a lower specific gravity and floats in a solid form.

The salt content of water comes from dissociated ions in an aqueous phase. These ions are NOT inhibited from entering water of the same temperature. They are ONLY excluded when the water becomes cold enough to actually become a solid.

Unless you're now going to claim that the Bible also mentions a flash freeze at the same time as the flood... in which case, the ark would surely have struck ice and drowned everyone inside.

Ocean "salt" water has a density of about 64 lb/cf; fresh water, 62.4 lb/cf. One of the leading theories on how some ice ages start, is that increasing global temperature melts polar ice caps which introduces so much fresh water into the polar regions that it caps the salt water which then is not chilled (and thus does not increase in density) by the Arctic temperatures and therefore does not sink to power the Oceanic currents that bring warm surface water to the Arctic. Yes, there is diffusion at the interface, but fresh water does indeed "float" on top of the ocean water.

[Drawz]

Really? I can't figure this out. Why? I thought, though, if you ran as fast as the speed of light, you'd be with the light and in darkness because you'd be at the same point of light.

And if you ran faster than the speed of light, you'd be in front of the light, because you'd be after the point of light and the light would come back and hit you on the back of the head.

So, if you are faster, light is behind you, measured in millions of lightyears based on the amount of speed you are going times the speed of light.

This means, if you measure the distance of stars, as being millions of lightyears away from you, you could be actually seeing the light which is SLOWER than you had originally travelled and it is now catching up with you from behind (although you are facing it now).

:think: I think I've given myself a headache. Please correct me, if need be. Thanks!

Well, according to his theory it's impossible to move at the speed of light.

But say you acheive a speed of one half the speed of light. Commonsense physics would suggest that light coming from in front of you would appear to be approaching you half again as fast as normal light whereas light from behind you would appear to be moving half again as slow.

Einsteins theory however, indicates that light from both directions would still appear to be moving at the normal speed of light.

[Samm]

Swam from the convict colonies of course.

What convict colonies? :eh: Australia? There are no Kiwis in Australia.

Besides... does this look like a bird that can swim 1500 miles across open ocean? :eh:

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/56/e/AAAAAg3d0v8AAAAAAFbsXQ.jpg

And how would it have gotten from Mt. Ararat to Australia anyway?

... and yes, I knew you were being facetious. ;)

[Thor]

What if the "ark" in all these flood stories, really means the planet Earth? :think:

I don't understand what you mean here. :confused:

[Thor]

The majority of things that are faith based are dealt with in the spiritual and the supernatural...That's why it's called faith and not science.

That's why I call it poppycock. Because you have no evidence to support your assertion.

[Darkblade]

If you're going to ask a question trying to debunk something from the Bible it's best to have your facts correct.

There would not have been 14 of any animal on the Ark...2 of every unclean, and 7 of every clean animal. Now, whether or not the deer is considered a clean animal I do not know, as I'm not familiar with Jewish Dietary Laws...

And, if the story is indeed true...which I believe it is, as I believe everything in the Bible to be...do you not think that God already had this figured out?...they obviously weren't eaten on the Ark...so, He must have made the carnivores be herbivores for that 40 days...and I would imagine He kept it that way until the populations of each animal were replenished.firstly you need to check the orignal MSS and books on how the words there are actually used. like a concordance. or a book on ancient hebrew. the fact is the word used does not mean world or planet. it means many things from kingdom to dirt to land to region. the description on the animals also is instructive. further you need to understand why the flood happened. why did God do it? once you understand why you will see that it was not necessary to flood the whole world. it was only necessary to destroy the local threat to Christ's bloodline. at the period of the flood there was only one family left that had not been adulterated by intermarriage or turned to heathen ways. further; geological evidence supports a regional flood in that area during the biblical time frame for the flood.

the animals that went onto the ark were not all the species of the earth which was physically impossible in several different ways but instead all important regional beasts seven of each of domesticated types and in addition it seems some of the people that the flood was intended to destroy. again though the issue resides in linguistics between the original language and the English of king Jame's time.

[CID_0687]

That's why I call it poppycock. Because you have no evidence to support your assertion.
I prefer to call the popcorn, mixed with peanuts and caramel Poppycock...but thanks for your opinion.

I can't prove anything written in the Bible ever happened, and you can't prove it never did.

Just like you can't prove that all life began with a single celled organism, and I can't prove it didn't.

Both, when you get right down to it, are matters of faith.

[CID_0687]

firstly you need to check the orignal MSS and books on how the words there are actually used. like a concordance. or a book on ancient hebrew. the fact is the word used does not mean world or planet. it means many things from kingdom to dirt to land to region. the description on the animals also is instructive. further you need to understand why the flood happened. why did God do it? once you understand why you will see that it was not necessary to flood the whole world. it was only necessary to destroy the local threat to Christ's bloodline. at the period of the flood there was only one family left that had not been adulterated by intermarriage or turned to heathen ways. further; geological evidence supports a regional flood in that area during the biblical time frame for the flood.

the animals that went onto the ark were not all the species of the earth which was physically impossible in several different ways but instead all important regional beasts seven of each of domesticated types and in addition it seems some of the people that the flood was intended to destroy. again though the issue resides in linguistics between the original language and the English of king Jame's time.
Are you directing this to me, or adding to what I stated?

[Drawz]

firstly you need to check the orignal MSS and books on how the words there are actually used. like a concordance. or a book on ancient hebrew. the fact is the word used does not mean world or planet. it means many things from kingdom to dirt to land to region. the description on the animals also is instructive. further you need to understand why the flood happened. why did God do it? once you understand why you will see that it was not necessary to flood the whole world. it was only necessary to destroy the local threat to Christ's bloodline. at the period of the flood there was only one family left that had not been adulterated by intermarriage or turned to heathen ways. further; geological evidence supports a regional flood in that area during the biblical time frame for the flood.

the animals that went onto the ark were not all the species of the earth which was physically impossible in several different ways but instead all important regional beasts seven of each of domesticated types and in addition it seems some of the people that the flood was intended to destroy. again though the issue resides in linguistics between the original language and the English of king Jame's time.

A far more credible scenario.

[Darkblade]

to the OP. his thread starts with a few false premises though honestly that is not his or her fault. even devout so called fundamentalists don't bother look deeply at it. The majority of Christians including preachers think Noah's flood was a world flood. even otherwise intelligent christians believe that all the worlds terrestrial land animal species could fit in an arc of that size or that somehow all of them could be found and made to embark in that length of time. The OPs premises are therefore understandable if not the motives.

[Darkblade]

I prefer to call the popcorn, mixed with peanuts and caramel Poppycock...but thanks for your opinion.

I can't prove anything written in the Bible ever happened, and you can't prove it never did.

Just like you can't prove that all life began with a single celled organism, and I can't prove it didn't.

Both, when you get right down to it, are matters of faith.The bible properly understood does not contradict science (if that science is also properly understood) Neither the Big bang theory nor evolution as intended at the time or even if abiogenesis is demonstrated in the lab using means that are probably present on the primordial earth prove one way or another that God did not create first the universe, then the earth, then life and then mankind. it does not and cannot address such things. that it somehow can is an error committed by Christian and atheist alike.

[Drawz]

The bible properly understood does not contradict science (if that science is also properly understood) Neither the Big bang theory nor evolution as intended at the time or even if abiogenesis is demonstrated in the lab using means that are probably present on the primordial earth prove one way or another that God did not create first the universe, then the earth, then life and then mankind. it does not and cannot address such things. that it somehow can is an error committed by Christian and atheist alike.

For my part, I've never claimed that God didn't do all those things (I'm agnostic).
I do however claim that it was not done in six literal days around six thousand years ago, as many Christians maintain.

[Thor]

I can't prove anything written in the Bible ever happened, and you can't prove it never did.


I don't have to prove "it never did". YOU are the one making a claim (the Biblical story of Noah's Ark is true). It is up to YOU to provide evidence that supports this claim. It is NOT up to me to disprove your claim. Otherwise, I can claim that the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is true. You can't prove it's not.

If you can't provide supporting evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to say that your claim is unfounded (or, more colloquially, poppycock).

Just like you can't prove that all life began with a single celled organism, and I can't prove it didn't.


I did not make this claim.

Both, when you get right down to it, are matters of faith.

Not at all! There is scientific evidence to support the theory of abiogenesis. What evidence supports your claim?

[Darkblade]

For my part, I've never claimed that God didn't do all those things (I'm agnostic).
I do however claim that it was not done in six literal days around six thousand years ago, as many Christians maintain.And you are correct. but only because they have wrongly translated it. first in the application of a standard length for those "days" and secondly for failing to notice a mistranslation in line two of the creation narrative that throws any chance of deriving the true age of the world from the creation narrative away. first day is not day. its eon or age or the hebrew equivelent. secondly the word "was" in line two should be translated as became. given those two things and quotes from isaiah and in revalation the age of the earth as reported in the bible can only be described as a vast but unknown period of time.

[-American-]

I prefer to call the popcorn, mixed with peanuts and caramel Poppycock...but thanks for your opinion.

I can't prove anything written in the Bible ever happened, and you can't prove it never did.

Just like you can't prove that all life began with a single celled organism, and I can't prove it didn't.

Both, when you get right down to it, are matters of faith.

I disagree with your second sentence. Of course one can prove things written in the Bible actually happened. Many archelogical findings have helped to give credibility to many events written in the Bible. The belief that every event in the Bible written down has not been proven or can't be proven is incorrect.

[Darkblade]

I don't have to prove "it never did". YOU are the one making a claim (the Biblical story of Noah's Ark is true). It is up to YOU to provide evidence that supports this claim. It is NOT up to me to disprove your claim. Otherwise, I can claim that the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is true. You can't prove it's not.

If you can't provide supporting evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to say that your claim is unfounded (or, more colloquially, poppycock).



I did not make this claim.



Not at all! There is scientific evidence to support the theory of abiogenesis. What evidence supports your claim?

the prodcution of amino acids or even lipo proteins spheres in a lab are not evidence of abiogenesis. Amino acids have been observed in the depths of space. the lifeless spheres the scientists were recently crowing about have not. even if there were that is still not evidence of abiogenesis. the only acceptable evidence of abiogenesis is abiogenesis itself. show me actual abiogenesis in a lab. show me an actually video of it happening. nothing else is evidence for that. make a batch of chemicals turn into a yeast or a cyanobacterium or at least show me one of those spheres with primative RNA loops in it that is controling a metabolic process and reproducing.

[Darkblade]

and as i said earlier even the ironclad proof of abiogenesis does not say anything about the existence or non existence of God. that demonstration would do nothing to say that God is not directing every molecule in the universe that interests him to do so. that he did not cause those chemicals to assemble in just that way because it pleased him to do so and was part of his plan for the universe. Science's portfolio does not include describing God and likely it never will.

[CID_0687]

I disagree with your second sentence. Of course one can prove things written in the Bible actually happened. Many archelogical findings have helped to give credibility to many events written in the Bible. The belief that every event in the Bible written down has not been proven or can't be proven is incorrect.
It can't be proven to anyone that doesn't want to accept it. That's what I was trying to say...I know there have been archaeological findings...but, can I prove the story of Noah's Ark? Can I prove that Jesus was resurrected? Can I prove that Elijah ascended to heaven, or that all of mankind are the offspring of Adam and Eve? There are no archaeological findings to prove or disprove any of these things, they must all be taken on faith.

[Thor]

the prodcution of amino acids or even lipo proteins spheres in a lab are not evidence of abiogenesis. Amino acids have been observed in the depths of space. the lifeless spheres the scientists were recently crowing about have not. even if there were that is still not evidence of abiogenesis. the only acceptable evidence of abiogenesis is abiogenesis itself. show me actual abiogenesis in a lab. show me an actually video of it happening. nothing else is evidence for that. make a batch of chemicals turn into a yeast or a cyanobacterium or at least show me one of those spheres with primative RNA loops in it that is controling a metabolic process and reproducing.

What difference does it make if I can prove abiogenesis to you? This is what you said in an earlier post:

even if abiogenesis is demonstrated in the lab using means that are probably present on the primordial earth prove one way or another that God did not create first the universe, then the earth, then life and then mankind.

In your mind, even if abiogenesis is demonstrably shown to you, you would still say "God did it!"

[Darkblade]

What difference does it make if I can prove abiogenesis to you? This is what you said in an earlier post:



In your mind, even if abiogenesis is demonstrably shown to you, you would still say "God did it!"yes i would. the point is science cannot prove nor disprove it at least until the second coming.

[Thor]

It can't be proven to anyone that doesn't want to accept it.

I want to accept it! Now, show me some proof....

can I prove the story of Noah's Ark? Can I prove that Jesus was resurrected? Can I prove that Elijah ascended to heaven, or that all of mankind are the offspring of Adam and Eve? There are no archaeological findings to prove or disprove any of these things, they must all be taken on faith.

In the case of Noah's Ark, the LACK of archaeological findings IS EVIDENCE that it never happened. There is no evidence ANYWHERE that demonstrates a worldwide flood occurred around 4,000 years ago.

[CID_0687]

I want to accept it! Now, show me some proof....



In the case of Noah's Ark, the LACK of archaeological findings IS EVIDENCE that it never happened. There is no evidence ANYWHERE that demonstrates a worldwide flood occurred around 4,000 years ago.
No, but there is, as Darkblade pointed out, evidence of a regional flood around that time.

[Darkblade]

for the scientifically inclined here is a neat exercise for you. look to the field of linguistics the spread of language families. compare that to the bible narrative, the tablet of nations and the various migrations and scatterings and prophesies note the spread of the germanic tribes, the celts the rus, the picts, the saxons, the gauls and the phrygians in the bible. linguists have a little secret for you to uncover. you will find that the spread of those groups and thier languages closely agree with the way migrations in the bible were discribed.

[Darkblade]

I want to accept it! Now, show me some proof....



In the case of Noah's Ark, the LACK of archaeological findings IS EVIDENCE that it never happened. There is no evidence ANYWHERE that demonstrates a worldwide flood occurred around 4,000 years ago.the bible does not say a world flood occurred 4000 years ago. there is geological evidence of a breach of a natural mediteranean sea wall which would have flooded the region genesis took place in.

[Darkblade]

also how did the bible not only name Cyrus the Great 200 years before he was born but also that he would free the Jews?

[Thor]

yes i would. the point is science cannot prove nor disprove it at least until the second coming.

Oh, yeah.... the "second coming"....:rolleyes:

Well, we've been waiting for 2,000 years and he hasn't returned. And I'll guarantee that 2,000 years from now he won't have returned. And, no doubt, we'll still be waiting 20,000 years from now. And when the sun burns out I'm sure we'll still be waiting.

And science does not "prove" anything. It merely provides us with the BEST explanation for natural phenomena given the available evidence.

[Thor]

No, but there is, as Darkblade pointed out, evidence of a regional flood around that time.

So now we're going from a cataclysmic, worldwide flood that killed everything to a regional flood? This makes even LESS sense! For the waters to be high enough to cover mountains the oceans would need to flood and rise to heights higher than the mountain. This could not POSSIBLY happen in a "regional flood".

[Drawz]

In the case of Noah's Ark, the LACK of archaeological findings IS EVIDENCE that it never happened. There is no evidence ANYWHERE that demonstrates a worldwide flood occurred around 4,000 years ago.

^What he said. ^

[Thor]

also how did the bible not only name Cyrus the Great 200 years before he was born but also that he would free the Jews?

Oh, gee.... that's a tough one!

Hmmmm....

Could it POSSIBLY be that someone inserted this "prophecy" into the Bible after it happened?

[Darkblade]

Oh, yeah.... the "second coming"....:rolleyes:

Well, we've been waiting for 2,000 years and he hasn't returned. And I'll guarantee that 2,000 years from now he won't have returned. And, no doubt, we'll still be waiting 20,000 years from now. And when the sun burns out I'm sure we'll still be waiting.

And science does not "prove" anything. It merely provides us with the BEST explanation for natural phenomena given the available evidence.actually presuming that the generation of the fig (mentioned by Jesus as the generation that would still be alive when he returned) started when israel was recreated then we have at best 60 or so years or as few as 3. Though no one knows for sure when that generation starts.

and i am well aware of the definition of both science and the scientific method given that i have a science degree, thank you very much.

[Thor]

the bible does not say a world flood occurred 4000 years ago. there is geological evidence of a breach of a natural mediteranean sea wall which would have flooded the region genesis took place in.

Up to the height that MOUNTAINS were covered?

I don't think so....

[Darkblade]

Oh, gee.... that's a tough one!

Hmmmm....

Could it POSSIBLY be that someone inserted this "prophecy" into the Bible after it happened?no. could it be that you pulled that out of the south end of your alimentary canal? because it has been shown that the MSS matches earlier codex and scroll fragments and so forth. The Horsht Kritque school of biblical criticism tried that angle and made fools of themselves again and again as earlier and earlier versions of the books they disputed on the ground the earliest extant copy of this or that post dated the date chronicled etc... now they don't even try it. but by way of illustration there was unearthed a pure silver scroll fragment of isaiah predating the previous earliest extant copy by centuries. oops! so much for that ol' they were not written when they say they were written argument.

[Thor]

actually presuming that the generation of the fig (mentioned by Jesus as the generation that would still be alive when he returned) started when israel was recreated then we have at best 6or so years or as few as 3. Though no one knows for sure when that generation starts.


So, Jesus will return in as little as three years, and no more than six?

Care to place a large bet on that? I've got $25,000 that says you're wrong!

and i am well aware of the definition of both science and the scientific method given that i have a science degree, thank you very much.

Wow....

Just, wow.

[Darkblade]

So, Jesus will return in as little as three years, and no more than six?

Care to place a large bet on that? I've got $25,000 that says you're wrong!



Wow....

Just, wow.

60. the longest amount of time given for a generation is 120 years. 60 or so have elapsed assuming the generation of the fig started with the reinstatement of israel.

[CID_0687]

So now we're going from a cataclysmic, worldwide flood that killed everything to a regional flood? This makes even LESS sense! For the waters to be high enough to cover mountains the oceans would need to flood and rise to heights higher than the mountain. This could not POSSIBLY happen in a "regional flood".
You're only helping to prove my point...and thank you for that.

That evidence can be proposed...as there is evidence of a regional flood...but if you're unwilling you won't accept it.

No worries, I don't believe a lot of things myself.

[Darkblade]

on top of thatthe bible has generations that vary from 60 years to 80 to 120.

[Darkblade]

Up to the height that MOUNTAINS were covered?

I don't think so....i think if you research you will find that mount arrarat in the flood narrative was not the mount arrarat that we know today. it was in fact a hill outside of jerusalem but my memory is faulty as to which one.

[CID_0687]

Up to the height that MOUNTAINS were covered?

I don't think so....
The original Hebrew, being translated to English can lose it's meaning...as is the case for many languages...mountains or high places could have easily meant higher elevations...here's an article, if you're really interested.

http://www.gindorf.us/coolstuff/writings/articles/flood.html

[Darkblade]

on top of that arrarat was a hill. not a mountain. and not the arrarat we know today. those ark hunters are looking atthe wrong location and of course the ark either rotted or was canibalized and used to build stuff afterwards.

[Drawz]

You're only helping to prove my point...and thank you for that.

That evidence can be proposed...as there is evidence of a regional flood...but if you're unwilling you won't accept it.

No worries, I don't believe a lot of things myself.

He's absolutely not proving your point.
There's evidence for a regional flood (I haven't seen it but I'll take darkblade at his word).
The Biblical account states that the waters covers the tops of the mountains. Something that wouldn't happen during a local flood unless the mountains they were referring to were only small hills. (Mt Ararat is close to 17,000 ft above sea level)

[CID_0687]

He's absolutely not proving your point.
There's evidence for a regional flood (I haven't seen it but I'll take darkblade at his word).
The Biblical account states that the waters covers the tops of the mountains. Something that wouldn't happen during a local flood unless the mountains they were referring to were only small hills. (Mt Ararat is close to 17,000 ft above sea level)
Different Mt. Ararat...click the link I gave...it talks about the words being lost in translation...the mountains probably were indeed merely hills.

[Darkblade]

He's absolutely not proving your point.
There's evidence for a regional flood (I haven't seen it but I'll take darkblade at his word).
The Biblical account states that the waters covers the tops of the mountains. Something that wouldn't happen during a local flood unless the mountains they were referring to were only small hills. (Mt Ararat is close to 17,000 ft above sea level)its a linguistic thing arrarat is not the huge mountain e know today. i don't know if i can quickly find a cite for that but i am made to understand that the arrarat referred to is in fact one of the hills outside of present day jerusalem. perhaps even the mount of olives which as you know is not really a mountain.

[Drawz]

Different Mt. Ararat...click the link I gave...it talks about the words being lost in translation...the mountains probably were indeed merely hills.

Perhaps I'm operating under a misconception. Is it your position then, that the Genesis Flood was a local and not a global event?

[Drawz]

its a linguistic thing arrarat is not the huge mountain e know today. i don't know if i can quickly find a cite for that but i am made to understand that the arrarat referred to is in fact one of the hills outside of present day jerusalem. perhaps even the mount of olives which as you know is not really a mountain.

Gotcha.
Don't bother looking for a citation on my account, I always assumed that something like that was the case.

[Darkblade]

the floods primary purpose was to ensure the line of descent for Christ would survive and preserve the prophesy in every detail. to do that one only needed to clear the kennite influence and the adultered familial lines from the region.

[Darkblade]

Christ had to both be a descendant of eve through seth on down and a levitical priest through Joseph. the hebrew culture was almost assimilated into the local cultures. not only through intermarriages but from taking the idolatry of the locals instead of the worship of JHVH. The levitical priests would not not exist in the future if worship of JHVH were exinguished in the past. and due to the way Hebrews recon lines of decent even that portion of the prophesy would be thwarted by intermarriage.

[Drawz]

the floods primary purpose was to ensure the line of descent for Christ would survive and preserve the prophesy in every detail. to do that one only needed to clear the kennite influence and the adultered familial lines from the region.

Seems like an inelegant and messy way to take care of the problem, especially assuming His omnipotence.

[Darkblade]

Seems like an inelegant and messy way to take care of the problem, especially assuming His omnipotence.remember also that nearly the totality of the proto-hebrews were not being faithful to thier God and creator.prior to the new covenant punishment was merited. in addition he would not do solutions like limiting thier actions so they could not stray because they had to have the choice to choose to be faithful or not. furthermore since their death on earth is not their true end it is not as final as it seems to us who see only the end of things when someone dies. all of them because they existed prior to either the abrahamic covenant or the covenant of Christ still have hope of salvation. even the most evil seeming death and disaster here has little meaning if we are in fact still alive afterwards. even the tragedy of a baby dying of a disease or accident or worse is in that view only a momentary unpleasantness in our existence.

[CID_0687]

Perhaps I'm operating under a misconception. Is it your position then, that the Genesis Flood was a local and not a global event?
Yep.

[CID_0687]

Yep.


And, to elaborate on that...in the time it was written, and with the Hebrew language...using words like "world" or "universal" could have simply meant the world that they knew...most people never got out of the valley or off the mountain they lived in.

In the book of Romans, Paul writes that the whole world has learned of the church in Rome...I don't think that meant that even the American Indians knew of the Roman church...but that everyone that knew of Rome, knew that there was now a Christian church there.

This is also brought up in the article I provided.

[Drawz]

remember also that nearly the totality of the proto-hebrews were not being faithful to thier God and creator.prior to the new covenant punishment was merited. in addition he would not do solutions like limiting thier actions so they could not stray because they had to have the choice to choose to be faithful or not. furthermore since their death on earth is not their true end it is not as final as it seems to us who see only the end of things when someone dies. all of them because they existed prior to either the abrahamic covenant or the covenant of Christ still have hope of salvation. even the most evil seeming death and disaster here has little meaning if we are in fact still alive afterwards. even the tragedy of a baby dying of a disease or accident or worse is in that view only a momentary unpleasantness in our existence.

I wasn't referring to the mass killing of people. I was referring to the method used. Presumably He could have just waved his hand and caused those he wished dead, dead. Instead he flooded the entire region, causing untold suffering amongst the people killed, not to mention the death and suffering of untold (presumeably innocent) animals.

Just sayin, if I were the Big Guy, I would have done it differently.

[Drawz]

Yep.

Ah, my mistake.

"Appy Polly Loggies".

[Drawz]

And, to elaborate on that...in the time it was written, and with the Hebrew language...using words like "world" or "universal" could have simply meant the world that they knew...most people never got out of the valley or off the mountain they lived in.

In the book of Romans, Paul writes that the whole world has learned of the church in Rome...I don't think that meant that even the American Indians knew of the Roman church...but that everyone that knew of Rome, knew that there was now a Christian church there.

This is also brought up in the article I provided.
Yep.
:)

[Darkblade]

I wasn't referring to the mass killing of people. I was referring to the method used. Presumably He could have just waved his hand and caused those he wished dead, dead. Instead he flooded the entire region, causing untold suffering amongst the people killed, not to mention the death and suffering of untold (presumeably innocent) animals.

Just sayin, if I were the Big Guy, I would have done it differently.whe i was a teen and first started asking questions of my pastors they would often say that God and his actions are unfathomable. but as i studied on my own and talked to others who read indepth i found that that was not true. that most often if you try hard enough study long enough with the right tools you can understand why this or that happened. the most inscrutable for me was how could the death of Christ possibly absolve my sin, and why did God require it be done that way, why could he not just volunteer to forgive my sin and for that matter why he me make us so that we would fail and need it in the first place. but all of those things are not unfathomable. you can understand it. and you can see why it is justified.

Knowing all of that the easiest answer to give you would be that we cannot understand why God did what he did. but that is what my early pastors and preachers did. and it is not true. we can understand.

[Thor]

60. the longest amount of time given for a generation is 120 years. 60 or so have elapsed assuming the generation of the fig started with the reinstatement of israel.

Okay, 60 years then. Funny how you always get these wide ranging time frames when Jesus is supposed to return. Sorry, but I can't wait 61 years to collect on a bet.

[Thor]

You're only helping to prove my point...and thank you for that.

That evidence can be proposed...as there is evidence of a regional flood...but if you're unwilling you won't accept it.

No worries, I don't believe a lot of things myself.

How am I "proving your point"? I never said a regional flood didn't happen. There have been (and continue to be) regional floods all over the world.

I don't understand how you can now say it was a "regional flood" when my entire life this story has involved a worldwide cataclysm. Seems like you realize the original story is ridiculous and you have to change it to a "regional flood" in order to maintain believability.

[Darkblade]

Okay, 60 years then. Funny how you always get these wide ranging time frames when Jesus is supposed to return. Sorry, but I can't wait 61 years to collect on a bet.i can. i intend to be around forever. though i won't have any use for money by then.:lol:

[Thor]

i think if you research you will find that mount arrarat in the flood narrative was not the mount arrarat that we know today. it was in fact a hill outside of jerusalem but my memory is faulty as to which one.

So it was a DIFFERENT Mount Ararat that was really a "hill"? And what is your source for this?

[Thor]

Different Mt. Ararat...click the link I gave...it talks about the words being lost in translation...the mountains probably were indeed merely hills.

So you admit things in the Bible are "lost in translation". In that case, why should we believe ANYTHING that's in that book?

[CID_0687]

How am I "proving your point"? I never said a regional flood didn't happen. There have been (and continue to be) regional floods all over the world.

I don't understand how you can now say it was a "regional flood" when my entire life this story has involved a worldwide cataclysm. Seems like you realize the original story is ridiculous and you have to change it to a "regional flood" in order to maintain believability.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=60597311&postcount=104

[Thor]

remember also that nearly the totality of the proto-hebrews were not being faithful to thier God and creator.prior to the new covenant punishment was merited. in addition he would not do solutions like limiting thier actions so they could not stray because they had to have the choice to choose to be faithful or not. furthermore since their death on earth is not their true end it is not as final as it seems to us who see only the end of things when someone dies. all of them because they existed prior to either the abrahamic covenant or the covenant of Christ still have hope of salvation. even the most evil seeming death and disaster here has little meaning if we are in fact still alive afterwards. even the tragedy of a baby dying of a disease or accident or worse is in that view only a momentary unpleasantness in our existence.

And you have absolutely nothing that shows any of this to be factual.

[CID_0687]

So you admit things in the Bible are "lost in translation". In that case, why should we believe ANYTHING that's in that book?
It's a matter of faith...and you have to look at the BIG PICTURE...I don't just read one translation...as I'm not learned in the Hebrew and Latin languages...when I study God's word, I use three or four different English translations...some of the words differ, but they all lead to what I believe, and millions of others believe to be the Truth.

[Thor]

Knowing all of that the easiest answer to give you would be that we cannot understand why God did what he did. but that is what my early pastors and preachers did. and it is not true. we can understand.

Nope. I don't understand why this deity felt the need to kill innocent babies and children (not to mention adults). Seems horribly unjust and cruel. In fact, this appears to be something we would expect the "devil" to do. But because "God" did it, it's all good!

Makes absolutely zero sense.

[Thor]

It's a matter of faith...and you have to look at the BIG PICTURE...I don't just read one translation...as I'm not learned in the Hebrew and Latin languages...when I study God's word, I use three or four different English translations...some of the words differ, but they all lead to what I believe, and millions of others believe to be the Truth.

Well, was the entire world flooded, or just a localized region? That's an awfully big detail to get wrong.

And just because "millions" believe something to be "the truth" doesn't make it so. I'm sure "millions" believed in the "truth" of Zeus, Apollo, Ra or Woden.

[CID_0687]

Well, was the entire world flooded, or just a localized region? That's an awfully big detail to get wrong.

And just because "millions" believe something to be "the truth" doesn't make it so. I'm sure "millions" believed in the "truth" of Zeus, Apollo, Ra or Woden.
Think of it like this...

At the time the Torah was written the only "world" that was known was the region in which the people lived. They didn't know that there was a Europe or a North and South America...all they knew were some small sections of Asia and Africa...to them, that was the world.

If I hadn't gone to school, never watched a television show, or read the news, never traveled...I would think Anniston, AL was the entire world.

So, when this flood happened, in Noah's geographical region, they would have thought that the entire world must have flooded.

This doesn't mean they were stupid, or ignorant...they just had no way of knowing.

[Darkblade]

So it was a DIFFERENT Mount Ararat that was really a "hill"? And what is your source for this?this is from a sceptic site but it does mention the different ararats as a fact.

http://ldolphin.org/cisflood.html

The Bible says in Gen. 8:4 that the Ark came to rest on the mountains (plural) of Ararat. At the time Moses wrote Genesis Ararat was a mountainous region located in what is today Eastern Turkey. The Bible only gives a general location for the final resting place of Noah's Ark. Contrary to what many Christians believe, the Bible does not say the Ark landed on the Mt. Ararat of today. There is, however, compelling evidence from ancient history that the Ark landed on a mountain about 200 miles south of Mt. Ararat. Josephus seems to be referring to this mountain, and he claims it still existed in his day. An Arabic historian says the last remains of the Ark were hauled away about 1000 A.D.

[Darkblade]

Well, was the entire world flooded, or just a localized region? That's an awfully big detail to get wrong.

And just because "millions" believe something to be "the truth" doesn't make it so. I'm sure "millions" believed in the "truth" of Zeus, Apollo, Ra or Woden.No it's not. the bible was not written in english. it was written in several languages. the version of Hebrew long morphed and adultered by time. the editors of the KJV can be forgiven for making errors occasionally. all in all they did a good job. and where they were uncertain they recorded it in their letter to the king and why they interpreted it the way they did. that letter was a foreword to every kjv bible until much much later.

[Darkblade]

another thing certain euphemisms in the bible obscure what is being talked about. the passage of time as well as evolving language erase their meanings. things like "groves" and sayings like "the smoke of their burning goes up forever" the former is a maypole or phallic carving used in fertility rites and the latter is a saying that means something is final, irrevocable, done, finished and so forth. just like a kid today wouldn't know what a "hep kat" is if one bit them. likewise where these things appear in the bible they obscure the meaning meant to be conveyed.

[Drawz]

another thing certain euphemisms in the bible obscure what is being talked about. the passage of time as well as evolving language erase their meanings. things like "groves" and sayings like "the smoke of their burning goes up forever" the former is a maypole or phallic carving used in fertility rites and the latter is a saying that means something is final, irrevocable, done, finished and so forth. just like a kid today wouldn't know what a "hep kat" is if one bit them. likewise where these things appear in the bible they obscure the meaning meant to be conveyed.

Heh, heh. You said "phallic".

I don't think "hep kats" were in the habit of biting anyone, much less children.

:)

[Darkblade]

Heh, heh. You said "phallic".

I don't think "hep kats" were in the habit of biting anyone, much less children.

:)

true. exactly my point. some of the euphemisms are there because the hebrews would not speak of sexual things openly. but the figures of speech or Hebraisms are the equivelent of our slang. :lol:

[JohnRandolph]

There are myriad reasons not to accept the story of Noah's Ark as fact.

But, in this thread I just want to address one.

So, for those who contend that the story is true as written, I have one question:
how did the deer survive after Noah released all the animals after the Flood was over?

According to the Bible there were either two or fourteen deer on the Ark. Once they were released, along with all the carnivores, how did they mange to avoid those carnivores long enough to stay alive and maintain their species?

And if they did avoid those carnivores, then what did the meat eaters subsist on while their prey were rebuilding their population to a point where the carnivores could prey on them without killing off the species?

Tell ya what, when the time comes, and you face the judgement, why don't you ask HIM.

[Drawz]

Tell ya what, when the time comes, and you face the judgement, why don't you ask HIM.

Tell ya what, I would, except your fictional Judgement ain't never gonna happen.
And even if it did, I'd tell HIM that according to his Book he's a vindictive, petty, vengefull, murdering, caprecious bastard and I want no part of HIM or HIS salvation.

[captusa]

If you're going to ask a question trying to debunk something from the Bible it's best to have your facts correct.

There would not have been 14 of any animal on the Ark...2 of every unclean, and 7 of every clean animal. Now, whether or not the deer is considered a clean animal I do not know, as I'm not familiar with Jewish Dietary Laws...

.........
Gen.7
[2] Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
[3] Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
All species of deer including moose and elk are clean since they have a cloven hoof and chew their cuds.
That means 14 of every specie of bovine, sheep, goat, antelope and buffalo.
By no calculation could all the species fit on one ark of the discribed size.
Noah would have required an armada of arks.

[captusa]

i think if you research you will find that mount arrarat in the flood narrative was not the mount arrarat that we know today. it was in fact a hill outside of jerusalem but my memory is faulty as to which one.

Where does one research for evidence of the location of the landing of the Biblical ark of which there is no record other than the Bible?
How did anyone come up with a hill near Jersalem ?

[captusa]

Perhaps I'm operating under a misconception. Is it your position then, that the Genesis Flood was a local and not a global event?
Absolutely!!!!!

[Drawz]

All species of deer including moose and elk are clean since they have a cloven hoof and chew their cuds.
That means 14 of every specie of bovine, sheep, goat, antelope and buffalo.
By no calculation could all the species fit on one ark of the discribed size.
Noah would have required an armada of arks.

To be fair, it says by sevens, male and female, by twos, male and female. So it's a bit unclear whether it meant seven total or seven pairs ( though just seven would be odd, literally and figuratively).

That's why I didn't contest the post.

[captusa]

How am I "proving your point"? I never said a regional flood didn't happen. There have been (and continue to be) regional floods all over the world.

I don't understand how you can now say it was a "regional flood" when my entire life this story has involved a worldwide cataclysm. Seems like you realize the original story is ridiculous and you have to change it to a "regional flood" in order to maintain believability.

Things grow as a story gets older.
The writers of the Bible might have had a tendency to exaggerate.
The point is there is no evidence of a global flood that could have wiped out all animals and humans except for the passengers of one floating menagery.
While absence of evidence is not evidence of absense the perceivable geologic record would have revealed a global flood if one had occurred in the last 100 million or so years.

[angelicmadrigal]

I have a better question... how did the Kiwi birds get to New Zealand? ;)
Well that's easy. They fl......oh wait they can't fly. Maybe they floated there?

[captusa]

and as i said earlier even the ironclad proof of abiogenesis does not say anything about the existence or non existence of God. that demonstration would do nothing to say that God is not directing every molecule in the universe that interests him to do so. that he did not cause those chemicals to assemble in just that way because it pleased him to do so and was part of his plan for the universe. Science's portfolio does not include describing God and likely it never will.

Absolutely correct.
Nothing could possibly prove that a divine force did not cause everything to occur in the manner it occurred.
As far as science recognizing the influence of God (if HE exists or existed), if HIS effect could be quantified, HIS effect would included in scientific theories.

[angelicmadrigal]

How did liberals get to New Zealand? :think:

A wizard did it!

[captusa]

Sounds like the "but everyone is saying it, so it must be true" defense. I haven't heard the argument yet that can penetrate it. :)

Every civilization that has existed near bodies of waters have experienced floods.
Some so large that the indiginous population could not discern its boundries hence the assumption that the flood was universal.
If there actually was a universal flood, the stories in different civilzations would not contain so many variations.

[captusa]

Salt water has a higher specific gravity (weighs more) than fresh water does so salt water would stay lower and fresh water would float above. For the same reason ice floats.

Fill a glass half full with salt water.
Then carefully fill the rest of the glass with fresh water being careful not not to disturb the salt water.
Let it sit for a night and use a straw to sip from the very top of the glass.
I bet it will be salty.

Fill a glass half full with fresh water then add a half a cup of salt water.
If what you say is correct the fresh water will float to the top.
Try it.

[captusa]

Not true. When rain or river water hits the ocean it mixes with the salt water. It does not "float above" the salt water. Take a glass of salty water, then pour in some fresh water. By your theory, the fresh water should float to the top. But if you take a straw and sip the water from the surface you will find that the water is salty.

Sorry, I gave the same answer before I read yours.
I took so long to type it, I can't bear to delete it.

[biggles53]

Think of it like this...

At the time the Torah was written the only "world" that was known was the region in which the people lived. They didn't know that there was a Europe or a North and South America...all they knew were some small sections of Asia and Africa...to them, that was the world.

If I hadn't gone to school, never watched a television show, or read the news, never traveled...I would think Anniston, AL was the entire world.

So, when this flood happened, in Noah's geographical region, they would have thought that the entire world must have flooded.

This doesn't mean they were stupid, or ignorant...they just had no way of knowing.

Wait a minute, wait a minute......!

You lot claim that the Torah is the 'word of god', right? You accept that it was written by men, but that these guys were merely taking dictation from the man upstairs.

If that's the case, you think the boss might have whispered in Moses' ear (or whoever it was that wrote the darned thing) and given him a heads up....."Pssst...Mo...scratch out 'world' and replace it with 'in his backyard'...".........!!:rolleyes:

[captusa]

COMPLETELY different reasons for ice floating! Ice is water below a certain TEMPERATURE threshold! Below 4 degrees C, yes, water has a lower specific gravity and floats in a solid form.

The salt content of water comes from dissociated ions in an aqueous phase. These ions are NOT inhibited from entering water of the same temperature. They are ONLY excluded when the water becomes cold enough to actually become a solid.

Unless you're now going to claim that the Bible also mentions a flash freeze at the same time as the flood... in which case, the ark would surely have struck ice and drowned everyone inside.

More simply,
Ice floats because it is a solid with a lower specific gravity than water.
Also some liquids do not disolve in other liquids.
Oil does not disolve in water so oil floats on water.
This does not occur with fresh water and salt water because (surprisingly) water disolves in water.

As you know the fact that water is the only compound that expands when cooling (between 4C and 0C) is the reason water is the only liquid that freezes on the top first.

[captusa]

Tell ya what, I would, except your fictional Judgement ain't never gonna happen.
And even if it did, I'd tell HIM that according to his Book he's a vindictive, petty, vengefull, murdering, caprecious bastard and I want no part of HIM or HIS salvation.

I believe the same thing that you go but I am wrong and do have to face HIM I believe I would show a little more discretion.

[AeroEngineer]

Do you know if you ran with a flashlight, as fast as the speed of light, you'd be in darkness?

Completely off topic, but... no you wouldn't.


Wiki special relativity. Light ALWAYS travels at the speed of light (away from you), no matter how fast you're going.

[AeroEngineer]

for the scientifically inclined here is a neat exercise for you. look to the field of linguistics the spread of language families. compare that to the bible narrative, the tablet of nations and the various migrations and scatterings and prophesies note the spread of the germanic tribes, the celts the rus, the picts, the saxons, the gauls and the phrygians in the bible. linguists have a little secret for you to uncover. you will find that the spread of those groups and thier languages closely agree with the way migrations in the bible were discribed.

What does it say about the native americans and their linguistic migrations?

You're basically saying people spread out in the way that the people who wrote the Bible knew they spread...

[stevesou]

Funny how people try to rationalize an entity capable of creating the universe and all within. I don't think we are there yet.

If God wanted to create an ark with "x" amount of life forms to procreate the earth I don't think He would have a problem with it. Just my 2 ¢

[Drawz]

I believe the same thing that you go but I am wrong and do have to face HIM I believe I would show a little more discretion.

:lol:

By all reports, he's not the type of cat to accept last minute lip service. I'll go out guns blazing, clawing tooth and nail. :)

[Drawz]

Funny how people try to rationalize an entity capable of creating the universe and all within. I don't think we are there yet.

If God wanted to create an ark with "x" amount of life forms to procreate the earth I don't think He would have a problem with it. Just my 2 ¢

Your two cents doesn't really match up with Gods (supposed) Word. According to Him it was Noah who built the Ark and him and his family who were responsible for the care of the animals.

Also, I don't think animals can "procreate the earth".

[CID_0687]

Wait a minute, wait a minute......!

You lot claim that the Torah is the 'word of god', right? You accept that it was written by men, but that these guys were merely taking dictation from the man upstairs.

If that's the case, you think the boss might have whispered in Moses' ear (or whoever it was that wrote the darned thing) and given him a heads up....."Pssst...Mo...scratch out 'world' and replace it with 'in his backyard'...".........!!:rolleyes:
As I also suggested earlier, it could have been lost in translation...as I'm not a scholar of the Hebrew language, I cannot know this with certainty. But, when there is archaeological evidence to support the claim that there was a regional flood in the time frame of when the story would have taken place it's enough proof for me.

I like it when you atheists and skeptics get all riled up. :dance:

[Samm]

Fill a glass half full with salt water.
Then carefully fill the rest of the glass with fresh water being careful not not to disturb the salt water.
Let it sit for a night and use a straw to sip from the very top of the glass.
I bet it will be salty.

Fill a glass half full with fresh water then add a half a cup of salt water.
If what you say is correct the fresh water will float to the top.
Try it.

You can layer fresh water atop salt water exactly the same way you can layer lower proofs of rum atop higher proofs in a Zombie.

Maybe you missed my earlier post. In the time of sailing ships, crews would top off their drinking water supply miles off the mouth of the Amazon River by dipping buckets into the sea. The amount of fresh water from that river is so immense a layer of fresh water persists atop the brine as long as the sea is calm.

[biggles53]

As I also suggested earlier, it could have been lost in translation...as I'm not a scholar of the Hebrew language, I cannot know this with certainty. But, when there is archaeological evidence to support the claim that there was a regional flood in the time frame of when the story would have taken place it's enough proof for me.

I like it when you atheists and skeptics get all riled up. :dance:

Don't confuse a face-palm with "riled up"...........

[Darkblade]

What does it say about the native americans and their linguistic migrations?

You're basically saying people spread out in the way that the people who wrote the Bible knew they spread...if they are mongolian or at least eurasian in origin then they too are covered in the bible because migration to asia is also covered. from that migration to asia further migration can be extrapolated just like since we can trace the migration to europe and the uk we can further extrapolate tha americans are an extension of that documented migration.

in one case the descendants of the european migration in one eastern european country still refer to themselves as the sons of togmara. the term used for them in the bible. When God referred to a nation in the bible he identified them as by their line of descent from sons of Noah (and later Abraham). (this is the reason the table of nations in genesis is so important) so all the exotic sounding nations in prophesies such as the prophesy about armagedon can be linked to actual existing countries by way of knowing the history of an area.

[Darkblade]

if you look into it you will find plenty of stuff to look at and some of it scholarly and compelling. this stuff is a pretty good reason by itself to take the bible seriously and the linguists and others that study this in the scientific community know this but keep it quiet.

[Greyclouds]

Ocean "salt" water has a density of about 64 lb/cf; fresh water, 62.4 lb/cf. One of the leading theories on how some ice ages start, is that increasing global temperature melts polar ice caps which introduces so much fresh water into the polar regions that it caps the salt water which then is not chilled (and thus does not increase in density) by the Arctic temperatures and therefore does not sink to power the Oceanic currents that bring warm surface water to the Arctic. Yes, there is diffusion at the interface, but fresh water does indeed "float" on top of the ocean water.

Given the surface area for a global rainstorm, a large interface for fresh vs. salt water would not exist. Instead, half ml drops of water would mix themselves in the the salt water, thereby preventing the formation of such an interface.

At best, you'd have small interfaces of fresh water near the initial runoffs of rivers, but you're likely to also drag a significant amount of sediment into the ocean as well! Also, this would become insignificant as sea level rose beyond the current river deltas of the world.

[Greyclouds]

the prodcution of amino acids or even lipo proteins spheres in a lab are not evidence of abiogenesis. Amino acids have been observed in the depths of space. the lifeless spheres the scientists were recently crowing about have not. even if there were that is still not evidence of abiogenesis. the only acceptable evidence of abiogenesis is abiogenesis itself. show me actual abiogenesis in a lab. show me an actually video of it happening. nothing else is evidence for that. make a batch of chemicals turn into a yeast or a cyanobacterium or at least show me one of those spheres with primative RNA loops in it that is controling a metabolic process and reproducing.

Direct observation is not a requirement for a scientific theory.

Also, amino acids are self polymerizing organic compounds (if given enough time and enthalpy). Given in tandem with nucleotides and lipid moieties, you have a chance for polymerization of all those macromolecules at the same time, thereby giving a chance for life.

Note: I said chance. Scientists have never claimed any one theory of abiogenesis to be anything other than putative possibility.

[Greyclouds]

for the scientifically inclined here is a neat exercise for you. look to the field of linguistics the spread of language families. compare that to the bible narrative, the tablet of nations and the various migrations and scatterings and prophesies note the spread of the germanic tribes, the celts the rus, the picts, the saxons, the gauls and the phrygians in the bible. linguists have a little secret for you to uncover. you will find that the spread of those groups and thier languages closely agree with the way migrations in the bible were discribed.

Not entirely: our buildings currently exceed the maximum height that stone age buildings/constructions could reach. Such feats of engineering have not resulted in a genesis of new languages and a dispersal of people.

Of course, if you take the tower of babel as figurative story, then the moral of the story still isn't followed. Technology is human arrogance and defiance of God. If you can read this text... well...

[Greyclouds]

this is from a sceptic site but it does mention the different ararats as a fact.

http://ldolphin.org/cisflood.html

Depending on the location of the ark with relation to the hill's topography (and if the ark did land at the summit of a large mountain, well... we're talking about a tsunami here, not the "opening of the firmament"), the remnants of the ark that the arabian historian carried away might have been a pile of dirt.

At lower altitudes, ligninosidic and cellulosidic microbes/fungi could have easily degraded the ark within 50 some odd years (and that's if they were at inoptimal temperatures). At higher altitudes, I could see a possibility of wood preservation, but that's IF the ark was raised at least 15000 feet above sea level (around the height of mount ararat).

For the ark to reach that height, you must also believe in a global flood. A local flood would have no means of projecting a floating object that high.

This also means that you believe that the modern day study of haplotypes for ethnic divergence from "mitochondrial eve" and "Y-chromosome adam" is completely and utterly false. Why? Because the distribution of native Americans could not have happened as the genetic and archaeological records show and thereby our current study of Molecular Biology (haplotyping takes many different aspects of genetics and organic chemistry into account) is absolutely false.

[stevesou]

There are myriad reasons not to accept the story of Noah's Ark as fact.

But, in this thread I just want to address one.

So, for those who contend that the story is true as written, I have one question:
how did the deer survive after Noah released all the animals after the Flood was over?

According to the Bible there were either two or fourteen deer on the Ark. Once they were released, along with all the carnivores, how did they mange to avoid those carnivores long enough to stay alive and maintain their species?

And if they did avoid those carnivores, then what did the meat eaters subsist on while their prey were rebuilding their population to a point where the carnivores could prey on them without killing off the species?


No way to know for sure but assuming God wanted them to survive I don't think it would have bene too difficult for Him to do. It is difficult if not impossible to apply our logic and rationale to a spiritual entity like God....assuming the position He exists and things happened the way they were supposed/or close to according to Biblical references.

[Thor]

Think of it like this...

At the time the Torah was written the only "world" that was known was the region in which the people lived. They didn't know that there was a Europe or a North and South America...all they knew were some small sections of Asia and Africa...to them, that was the world.

If I hadn't gone to school, never watched a television show, or read the news, never traveled...I would think Anniston, AL was the entire world.

So, when this flood happened, in Noah's geographical region, they would have thought that the entire world must have flooded.

This doesn't mean they were stupid, or ignorant...they just had no way of knowing.


Now wait a minute! I thought the Bible was written by "God". And this god would certainly know whether he flooded "the entire world" or just a localized region.

[Thor]

Tell ya what, when the time comes, and you face the judgement, why don't you ask HIM.

And when the time comes, and you face the judgement, what are you going to say if you are surprised to find that the real god is Zeus, and he's angry that you never believed in him?

Pascal's wager is a poor bet.

[Thor]

As I also suggested earlier, it could have been lost in translation...as I'm not a scholar of the Hebrew language, I cannot know this with certainty. But, when there is archaeological evidence to support the claim that there was a regional flood in the time frame of when the story would have taken place it's enough proof for me.


Then how do we know other things haven't been "lost in translation"? How do we know the story of Adam and Eve hasn't been completely screwed up? How do we know the story of Moses isn't totally wrong? How do we know that the story of the Sodom and Gomorrah isn't missing some key details? If what you are saying is true, we can't! The entire book is basically poisoned because we can't trust that anything is true due to "translation" issues.

And there is evidence of a local flood in the right time frame? Big deal. This proves nothing. Regional floods have taken place all over the globe since there has been water on the planet.

[Darkblade]

Not entirely: our buildings currently exceed the maximum height that stone age buildings/constructions could reach. Such feats of engineering have not resulted in a genesis of new languages and a dispersal of people.

Of course, if you take the tower of babel as figurative story, then the moral of the story still isn't followed. Technology is human arrogance and defiance of God. If you can read this text... well...it was not the building that generated the language confusion God did. not all events in the bible have a natural cause. Most do like the archeological evidence for the destruction of Sodom and Gamorah (one site was found. the other remains unlocated), the destruction of jericho the seal wall collapse, and the parting of the red (Reed) sea. but some are just plain inexplicable. like the confusion of tongues. that does not make them untrue. it means they are beyond the means of science to describe.

[Thor]

No way to know for sure but assuming God wanted them to survive I don't think it would have bene too difficult for Him to do. It is difficult if not impossible to apply our logic and rationale to a spiritual entity like God....assuming the position He exists and things happened the way they were supposed/or close to according to Biblical references.

And if this deity wanted certain beings to "survive", why bother flooding the entire planet? Couldn't he just snap his fingers and kill off all the things that he wanted dead, while leaving Noah, his family and certain animals alive? Why cause a cataclysmic flood? You mean to tell me the most brilliant being in existence couldn't think of a better way to "start over" other than drowning toddlers?

[Darkblade]

Now wait a minute! I thought the Bible was written by "God". And this god would certainly know whether he flooded "the entire world" or just a localized region.what does the inability of the KJV editors to adequately translate some passages of the MMS have to do with the nonsensical implication that God himself erred in writing the Bible? non sequitur.

[Greyclouds]

it was not the building that generated the language confusion God did. not all events in the bible have a natural cause. Most do like the archeological evidence for the destruction of Sodom and Gamorah (one site was found. the other remains unlocated), the destruction of jericho the seal wall collapse, and the parting of the red (Reed) sea. but some are just plain inexplicable. like the confusion of tongues. that does not make them untrue. it means they are beyond the means of science to describe.

Yes, I'm not arguing that, according to the Bible, God created the confusion of "tongues." What I AM arguing is that our repeated use of technology is contrary to the moral of the story itself. God was worried about the organization of man, fearing that humans would seek to usurp his authority, and yet we (as the most technological society on Earth at this present moment) still maintain relative cohesion.

As for unnatural mechanisms of action, they're inarguable; you can't argue for or against them in any logical context. For example: I believe that Babd Catha could turn into a raven. You cannot argue against this opinion as being fact, much like I cannot argue for this opinion as being accepted fact!

[Darkblade]

oh and BTW: you asked me for a site providing evidence that Mount Ararat in the bible is not the present day Mount ararat. i did. that does not mean that i concur with any of the site's other assertions which you elected to comment on while ignoring the fact that i had provided a cite backing up my point that you disputed. i reiterate it is a biblical skeptic site. i do not concur with most of what is there and in fact it has several facts that it bases its analysis on wrong.

[Darkblade]

Yes, I'm not arguing that, according to the Bible, God created the confusion of "tongues." What I AM arguing is that our repeated use of technology is contrary to the moral of the story itself. God was worried about the organization of man, fearing that humans would seek to usurp his authority, and yet we (as the most technological society on Earth at this present moment) still maintain relative cohesion.

As for unnatural mechanisms of action, they're inarguable; you can't argue for or against them in any logical context. For example: I believe that Babd Catha could turn into a raven. You cannot argue against this opinion as being fact, much like I cannot argue for this opinion as being accepted fact!Usurping God's authority is completely impossible. everything we do we do so by his permission and forbearance. Thinking he could Usurp God's authority and position is exactly the ruineous error that Satan made in the very beginning. The tower of Babel could not literally reach heaven nor could it literally defeat Gods power. but it could and did threaten to lead men from God into idolatry and derail the salvation plan. once the salvation plan had been completed with the crucifixion, descent and resurrection of Christ even that is no longer of consequence. because the success of salvation plan cannot be undone.

[Thor]

some are just plain inexplicable. like the confusion of tongues. that does not make them untrue. it means they are beyond the means of science to describe.

Yes, some of the stories in the Bible are "inexplicable" because they violate physical laws and go against common sense (A man rising up from the dead? A man losing his strength because his hair was cut? A river turning into blood? A man walking on water?) and, as you say, this does not "make them untrue". However, it does make them HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be true. Especially in the absence of any corroborating evidence.

[Thor]

what does the inability of the KJV editors to adequately translate some passages of the MMS have to do with the nonsensical implication that God himself erred in writing the Bible? non sequitur.

It has everything to do with it! If this deity meant that the ENTIRE WORLD was flooded, he would have (or should have) said, "the world". If he meant a localized area, he would have (or should have) said "the region of x". This brilliant being can't adequately communicate? And, like I said, if we can't properly translate the Bible, then the entire book is meaningless because we can't know what is translated correctly and what is wrong.

[Greyclouds]

Usurping God's authority is completely impossible. everything we do we do so by his permission and forbearance. Thinking he could Usurp God's authority and position is exactly the ruineous error that Satan made in the very beginning. The tower of Babel could not literally reach heaven nor could it literally defeat Gods power. but it could and did threaten to lead men from God into idolatry and derail the salvation plan. once the salvation plan had been completed with the crucifixion, descent and resurrection of Christ even that is no longer of consequence. because the success of salvation plan cannot be undone.

You have no local biblical support for your opinion of God's reasoning in this matter.

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Given Christianity's later interpretation of the text, then yes, you have some contention, but again that's an anachronistic opinion of the event after it was recorded in the Torah, IMO.

[Pudge]

Why wasnt this posted in the religion forum?

Im betting I know why.

Because someone might find the questioning of the story to be 'disrespectful' and against the RF rules.

That and the not-so-thinly veiled attempts to weed out atheists from the RF.

Gee, I wonder why too.

[NascarGirl2448]

What the believers need to explain has been touched upon with the question about kiwis.

If the ark story is true, then every living creature stepped off a boat marooned on a mountain in Turkey. How is it, then, that the ONLY place you find kangaroos is in Australia? Are we to believe the kangaroos got off the boat and they all hopped across two continents and an ocean? What about tortoises that are only found on certain islands in the Pacific? How about prairie dogs that are only found in North America? If the ark story is true, we should expect to find populations of these animals living, at a minimum, on the same CONTINENT the ark supposedly ran aground. But we don't.

I'm still wondering when the giant land mass split into the 7 different continents. Honestly if you looked at the globe, all of the continents would fit back together. So when God created land, how long did it take for him to split the continents apart? The story in Genesis doesn't mention that part.

[Thor]

I'm still wondering when the giant land mass split into the 7 different continents. Honestly if you looked at the globe, all of the continents would fit back together. So when God created land, how long did it take for him to split the continents apart? The story in Genesis doesn't mention that part.

According to geologic evidence, Pangaea (the supercontinent you are referring to) began to break up about 250 million years ago. Well before Noah's Ark was supposedly built. Are you suggesting the continents were still one great land mass only 4,000 years ago?

And, by the way, "God" did not split the continents apart. It was the action of plate tectonics.

[NascarGirl2448]

For my part, I've never claimed that God didn't do all those things (I'm agnostic).
I do however claim that it was not done in six literal days around six thousand years ago, as many Christians maintain.

Interestingly enough, we were talking about the creation story in church on Sunday, and I don't think anyone in my Sunday school class believes that it was 6 literal days (like we think of days in 24 hour cycles). Then again, the United Methodist Church doesn't tend to take the Bible as literally as some churches do.

One of God's days may have been thousands of years in actuality. Personally, I think the 24 hour day may have been put in the story so that we humans could understand it. Parts of Alaska are light 6 months of the year and dark the other 6 months. How did that happen if God intended for every day to be light and dark within a 24 hour cycle?

[Thor]

Parts of Alaska are light 6 months of the year and dark the other 6 months. How did that happen if God intended for every day to be light and dark within a 24 hour cycle?

Yeah.... kinda makes you think that the Bible is wrong, doesn't it? :think:

[NascarGirl2448]

According to geologic evidence, Pangaea (the supercontinent you are referring to) began to break up about 250 million years ago. Well before Noah's Ark was supposedly built. Are you suggesting the continents were still one great land mass only 4,000 years ago?

No, unlike some Christians, I don't take the Bible word for word literally. I think some elements of the creation story (and others) were put into human terms so that we can understand how we got here and how this planet got here. I believe God had a hand in the formation of the earth (nature is too complex to not believe that God had a hand in it, imho) but I don't think he did it in literal 24 hour days.

And, by the way, "God" did not split the continents apart. It was the action of plate tectonics.

More than likely, God had a hand in it when he created land. Like I said, I just don't believe it was in literal 24 hour days.

[NascarGirl2448]

Yeah.... kinda makes you think that the Bible is wrong, doesn't it? :think:

Just makes me wonder why God had made one part of the world so drastically different.

[Drawz]

Just makes me wonder why God had made one part of the world so drastically different.

So we could have seasons?

[NascarGirl2448]

So we could have seasons?

Still doesn't explain why its light for 6 months in some parts of Alaska and dark for the other 6 months. I think the fact that we have 4 seasons is having something to do with the way the Earth rotates around the sun, gravitational pull on the Earth and that kind of thing.

[Darkblade]

Interestingly enough, we were talking about the creation story in church on Sunday, and I don't think anyone in my Sunday school class believes that it was 6 literal days (like we think of days in 24 hour cycles). Then again, the United Methodist Church doesn't tend to take the Bible as literally as some churches do.

One of God's days may have been thousands of years in actuality. Personally, I think the 24 hour day may have been put in the story so that we humans could understand it. Parts of Alaska are light 6 months of the year and dark the other 6 months. How did that happen if God intended for every day to be light and dark within a 24 hour cycle?thats because the hebrew word translated as "day" in the KJV word actually has several meanings but is most commonly according to our modern understanding are "aeon" or (variable duration) "ages." concerning that: read up on the three ages of the earth in the bible. isaiah, peter and revelation i believe all support that there was an age before man on the earth.

The bible is not intended to be a text book about science and such; it is the story of the salvation plan. things happened before genesis and things will happen after revelation. but those things are not touched on very much because they just are not that important to the purpose of the bible. the only pre-genesis things mentioned is the war in heaven mentioned in daniel and in revelation.

[Kelzan]

What about saltwater, freshwater animals?
If the flood water was salty, it would have killed freshwater fish, if it was fresh it would have diluted the saltwater habitats and killed saltwater life.

[Thor]

I think some elements of the creation story (and others) were put into human terms so that we can understand how we got here and how this planet got here.

If the idea of putting the creation story into "human terms" was supposed to make us "understand how we got here" it does a lousy job. Because the story makes no sense given our scientific knowledge. We know that humans did not descend from two people named Adam and Eve (unless Adam and Eve were primitive apes).

I believe God had a hand in the formation of the earth (nature is too complex to not believe that God had a hand in it, imho)

And you have nothing that supports this statement.

More than likely, God had a hand in it when he created land.

"More than likely"? I consider HIGHLY unlikely that an invisible deity had anything to do with creating land. Like I said, land masses move as a result of plate tectonics, not the actions of some god.

[Thor]

Still doesn't explain why its light for 6 months in some parts of Alaska and dark for the other 6 months.

It is NOT "light for 6 months and dark for the other six months" in parts of Alaska! At most, there are extended periods of light and darkness in parts of Alaska that last for a couple of months. What do you think? It's pitch dark for six months and one day the sun pops high in the sky and stays there for six months?

[Drawz]

Still doesn't explain why its light for 6 months in some parts of Alaska and dark for the other 6 months. I think the fact that we have 4 seasons is having something to do with the way the Earth rotates around the sun, gravitational pull on the Earth and that kind of thing.

The tilt of the earth is why we have seasons. It's also why we have extended periods of n
light and dark above the arctic circle and why days are long in the summer and short in the winter.

[CID_0687]

Now wait a minute! I thought the Bible was written by "God". And this god would certainly know whether he flooded "the entire world" or just a localized region.
The Bible was written by men that were inspired by God. God isn't fallible, but men are.

[CID_0687]

Don't confuse a face-palm with "riled up"...........
Face palm? I thought it was more fingers in the ears saying, "lalalalala."

[Clintville]

How can people seriously believe this? There are millions, or more, of different species. How could they all fit on one boat?

[Clintville]

Makes some wonder how so many have flood stories so similar throughout the globe.

Probably because most of them had floods individually.

[NascarGirl2448]

It is NOT "light for 6 months and dark for the other six months" in parts of Alaska! At most, there are extended periods of light and darkness in parts of Alaska that last for a couple of months. What do you think? It's pitch dark for six months and one day the sun pops high in the sky and stays there for six months?

Then where on earth did that idea come from then? Someone must have exaggerated somewhere.

[NascarGirl2448]

How can people seriously believe this? There are millions, or more, of different species. How could they all fit on one boat?

That's one reason the documentary done by National Geographic on this very topic makes the most sense. At best, it was a regional flood, and Noah had a lot of people who were very upset with him back home.

[NascarGirl2448]

If the idea of putting the creation story into "human terms" was supposed to make us "understand how we got here" it does a lousy job. Because the story makes no sense given our scientific knowledge. We know that humans did not descend from two people named Adam and Eve (unless Adam and Eve were primitive apes).
And you have nothing that supports this statement.
"More than likely"? I consider HIGHLY unlikely that an invisible deity had anything to do with creating land. Like I said, land masses move as a result of plate tectonics, not the actions of some god.

Believe what you want, but I'd rather believe in God and find out I'm wrong than not believe and find out when its too late that I had screwed up big time. I choose to believe.

[Clintville]

Believe what you want, but I'd rather believe in God and find out I'm wrong than not believe and find out when its too late that I had screwed up big time. I choose to believe.
So you believe in God based on fear?

[NascarGirl2448]

So you believe in God based on fear?

What fear? If it turns out I'm right, I get to spend eternity in heaven. That's a pretty good reason if you ask me. If it turns out I was wrong, then I had nothing to lose. By choosing to believe, I have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

[mtdim]

What fear? If it turns out I'm right, I get to spend eternity in heaven. That's a pretty good reason if you ask me. If it turns out I was wrong, then I had nothing to lose. By choosing to believe, I have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

How can you choose to believe? If you tried really hard to believe that 2 + 2 =5, do you think you could convince yourself?

Some people just don't find the existence of the god of the bible very probable, regardless of what they want to believe.

[Clintville]

What fear? If it turns out I'm right, I get to spend eternity in heaven. That's a pretty good reason if you ask me. If it turns out I was wrong, then I had nothing to lose. By choosing to believe, I have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
That if you don't believe in God, you'll go to hell. And you aren't really playing it safe, they're are plenty of religions that believe in fear tactics too.

[CID_0687]

Believe what you want, but I'd rather believe in God and find out I'm wrong than not believe and find out when its too late that I had screwed up big time. I choose to believe.
Agreed.

[Drawz]

What fear? If it turns out I'm right, I get to spend eternity in heaven. That's a pretty good reason if you ask me. If it turns out I was wrong, then I had nothing to lose. By choosing to believe, I have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

Sigh, Pascal's Wager. What a sad proposition.

Do you really think that the God of the Bible would accept someone into Heaven when their "belief" is based on a self serving "hedging your bet" foundation?

[CID_0687]

So you believe in God based on fear?
My reason for belief has nothing to do with fear. Especially since I'm one of those kooky believers that doesn't believe in a literal hell. I know what I was before I became a Christian...and I was not a good person at all...I know that God moved in my life, and showed me that there was/is a better way to live. And I chose to follow Him.

If I'm wrong in this belief, when my life is over, I'll simply cease to exist...if I'm right, I'll live forever with Him in the New Jerusalem...nothing scary about that IMO.

[CID_0687]

How can you choose to believe? If you tried really hard to believe that 2 + 2 =5, do you think you could convince yourself?

Some people just don't find the existence of the god of the bible very probable, regardless of what they want to believe.
There was a time that I didn't believe...I believed in some sort of higher power, but I wasn't quite sure what that was.

I think God and I chose each other...it was a mutual thing...but, I can understand why some find it difficult to wrap their minds around.

[Drawz]

There was a time that I didn't believe...I believed in some sort of higher power, but I wasn't quite sure what that was.

I think God and I chose each other...it was a mutual thing...but, I can understand why some find it difficult to wrap their minds around.

I have no trouble wrapping my mind around it. People want their lives to have meaning, people want this world to have meaning, people want this universe to have meaning, people want their "selves" to exist after and apart from that time when they "shuffle off this mortal coil", and people, for thousands and thousands and thousands of years have been coming up with theories, stories, deities and religions to satisfy those desires.

[NascarGirl2448]

How can you choose to believe? If you tried really hard to believe that 2 + 2 =5, do you think you could convince yourself?

Some people just don't find the existence of the god of the bible very probable, regardless of what they want to believe.

Look at it this way, if you believe in God and find out you're wrong, what have you lost? Nothing.

[NascarGirl2448]

If I'm wrong in this belief, when my life is over, I'll simply cease to exist...if I'm right, I'll live forever with Him in the New Jerusalem...nothing scary about that IMO.

Exactly.

[NascarGirl2448]

That if you don't believe in God, you'll go to hell. And you aren't really playing it safe, they're are plenty of religions that believe in fear tactics too.

Try this: next time you go outside, look around. Look at the complexity of nature, and then ask yourself how you could be so convinced that God isn't real.

[NascarGirl2448]

Sigh, Pascal's Wager. What a sad proposition.

Do you really think that the God of the Bible would accept someone into Heaven when their "belief" is based on a self serving "hedging your bet" foundation?

I think God accepts anyone with a sincere belief, regardless of how that belief came to be.

[Darkblade]

How can people seriously believe this? There are millions, or more, of different species. How could they all fit on one boat?read the thread first.

[natalie addict]

I think God accepts anyone with a sincere belief, regardless of how that belief came to be.

Even if I sincerely believe He/She/It didn't exist exactly as described in the Old/New Testament?

[Drawz]

Even if I sincerely believe He/She/It didn't exist exactly as described in the Old/New Testament?

Or even if your belief stems from a cynical "cost/benefit" analysis...

[James Juno]

Or even if your belief stems from a cynical "cost/benefit" analysis...

:)) Well put.

[Drawz]

:)) Well put.

:)

To be clear, I was not referring to natalie's beliefs with that post. Rather, the previous posters who espoused Pascal's Wager as a valid reason for belief.

[natalie addict]

The tilt of the earth is why we have seasons. It's also why we have extended periods of n
light and dark above the arctic circle and why days are long in the summer and short in the winter.

The Arctic Circle in the north and the Antarctic Circle in the south are limits of where there is at least one day of total daylight in the summer or one day of total night in the winter. The more inside of these circles you go the more total days of light or dark you get.

Two other circles of interest is the Tropic of Cancer in the north and the Tropic of Capricorn in the south. At these circles there is at least one day when the sun is directly overhead at noon. Again as one goes further inside these circles there are more and more days when the sun is directly overhead at noon.

These extreme events happen on the June/December solstices.

On the June solstice, the longest day in the north, there is full daylight at the Arctic Circle, the sun is overhead at noon at the Tropic of Cancer and there is total darkness at the Antarctic Circle.

On the December solstice, the longest day the south, it's reversed. There is full daylight at the Antarctic Circle, the sun is overhead at noon at the Tropic of Capricorn and there is total darkness at the Arctic Circle.

And so it goes back and forth....

[Drawz]

The Arctic Circle in the north and the Antarctic Circle in the south are limits of where there is at least one day of total daylight in the summer or one day of total night in the winter. The more inside of these circles you go the more total days of light or dark you get.

Two other circles of interest is the Tropic of Cancer in the north and the Tropic of Capricorn in the south. At these circles there is at least one day when the sun is directly overhead at noon. Again as one goes further inside these circles there are more and more days when the sun is directly overhead at noon.

These extreme events happen on the June/December solstices.

On the June solstice, the longest day in the north, there is full daylight at the Arctic Circle, the sun is overhead at noon at the Tropic of Cancer and there is total darkness at the Antarctic Circle.

On the December solstice, the longest day the south, it's reversed. There is full daylight at the Antarctic Circle, the sun is overhead at noon at the Tropic of Capricorn and there is total darkness at the Arctic Circle.

And so it goes back and forth....

Yup.

Btw, I was born on the winter solstice here in the northern hemisphere.
Always figured that's why I seem to need more sleep than the average Joe.
Night time when I was born was really long... :)

[James Juno]

:)

To be clear, I was not referring to natalie's beliefs with that post. Rather, the previous posters who espoused Pascal's Wager as a valid reason for belief.

Yeah. Your phrase puts a contemporary spin on it. ;)

[The Bos'un]

Don't ask me.... Ask G_d. If He wants you to know, He will tell you.. :wall:

[Drawz]

Yeah. Your phrase puts a contemporary spin on it. ;)

:lol:

I'm all about using the "hip" new "lingo" that today's kids can really "dig".

[Drawz]

Don't ask me.... Ask G_d. If He wants you to know, He will tell you.. :wall:

Who are you addressing?

[CID_0687]

:)

To be clear, I was not referring to natalie's beliefs with that post. Rather, the previous posters who espoused Pascal's Wager as a valid reason for belief.
I don't look at my belief in God as using Pascal's wager. I believe in God because of the personal life experiences that I've had. And because of what I've seen Him do to and through other people. As I mentioned before, I never not believed in a higher power...for years I was an agnostic...or perhaps a better term would be a Deist...because I never did once question God's existence...Pascal's wager says, if I recall correctly, that someone puts their faith in God for the simple reason that they have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

There's nothing wrong with that, aside from the fact that I think it's rubbish...when I said that in my previous post I threw in the word "IF"...that's a very big IF in my book...because I know, that I know, that I know that God is real. I'm sure some will ask me to prove that to them, and they only way I can do so is by telling you my life experiences...what I've witnessed Him doing for me. Of course the skeptics and atheists will blow that off...call these things coincidences, or circumstances or luck, or what have you...And that's fine...those who are on that train of thought are set in their beliefs, or lack thereof...just as much as I'm set in mind...the only way they can be convinced is for it to happen to them. That's the only way I was convinced.

An atheist and myself could sit around and argue all day about who's right, and who's wrong. And at the end of the day, we'd go have a beer, laugh and realize that there's no way to prove to the each other any other way but our own.

"IF" I'm wrong, I've caused no harm to anyone...but I know I'm right. I'm pretty sure that's not what Pascal's Wager stated.

[biggles53]

The Bible was written by men that were inspired by God. God isn't fallible, but men are.

Then, as Thor also points out, what reason do we have for having confidence in ANY of it!?

Those "fallible men" could have been just as in error in describing virgin births, crucifixions, resurrections, etc as they were in getting the "global" aspect of the flood wrong....

[The Bos'un]

I was addressing, "You."

You wrote ( "So, for those who contend that the story is true as written, I have one question:how did the deer survive after Noah released all the animals after the Flood was over?" )

You asked the question. I provided a logical answer. Ask G_d. If he wants you to know, he will tell you. :wall:

[Clintville]

Look at it this way, if you believe in God and find out you're wrong, what have you lost? Nothing.
Unless there is a god, just a different one, and you go to their hell.

[Clintville]

Try this: next time you go outside, look around. Look at the complexity of nature, and then ask yourself how you could be so convinced that God isn't real.
I never said I was convinced. I just find it either unlikely or pointless to think about. The complexity of nature actually can be explained and has nothing to do with god necessarily, so that does nothing for me.

[Clintville]

read the thread first.
I did. I was talking about people who believe in the literal story.

[Clintville]

Don't ask me.... Ask G_d. If He wants you to know, He will tell you.. :wall:
That doesn't work for me. It never did.

[biggles53]

Look at it this way, if you believe in God and find out you're wrong, what have you lost? Nothing.

Pascal's Wager fails as a philosophy for two reasons -

1. As has already been pointed out, it assumes that the god waiting on 'the other side' is the Judeo-Christian god. What if you're met by some other deity, who is mightily p***ed off that you have been worshipping a fraud?!

2. It suggests that one should 'believe' on the off-chance that there is a god. If there is one, and he/she/it is as all-powerful and omniscient as is claimed, do you really think it wouldn't be able to see through such a guise....??

[Samm]

Given the surface area for a global rainstorm, a large interface for fresh vs. salt water would not exist. Instead, half ml drops of water would mix themselves in the the salt water, thereby preventing the formation of such an interface.

At best, you'd have small interfaces of fresh water near the initial runoffs of rivers, but you're likely to also drag a significant amount of sediment into the ocean as well! Also, this would become insignificant as sea level rose beyond the current river deltas of the world.

I never said "the flood" put a layer of fresh water atop sea water (thus supposedly not killing the vegetation) I simply said that it does happen and for very solid scientific reasons.

[Samm]

Still doesn't explain why its light for 6 months in some parts of Alaska and dark for the other 6 months. I think the fact that we have 4 seasons is having something to do with the way the Earth rotates around the sun, gravitational pull on the Earth and that kind of thing.

No point on Earth is light for six months and dark for six months... not even the poles. That is a myth created by the scientifically challenged. ;)

[NascarGirl2448]

No point on Earth is light for six months and dark for six months... not even the poles. That is a myth created by the scientifically challenged. ;)

Obviously someone came up with that, or no one would have heard of it. Then again, I might just move to Alaska and test it for myself ;)

[Glenn_G]

Obviously someone came up with that, or no one would have heard of it. Then again, I might just move to Alaska and test it for myself ;)

A globe and a decent flash light would be much less trouble.

[Thor]

Believe what you want, but I'd rather believe in God and find out I'm wrong than not believe and find out when its too late that I had screwed up big time. I choose to believe.

And what if YOU'RE wrong? What if you die and discover that Allah is the one true god and he's angry because you didn't believe in him?

Pascal's Wager is a poor bet.

[Thor]

The Bible was written by men that were inspired by God. God isn't fallible, but men are.

Then wouldn't he want to correct any errors in translation? You know, to make sure his people get the right message?

And what exactly does it mean when you say they were "inspired by God"? Did this deity dictate to them? Did he guide their hand as they wrote? Did he cheer them on as they wrote? I suppose that Santa Claus could "inspire" me to do good deeds at Chriatmas. Doesn't make him real.

[Thor]

Look at it this way, if you believe in God and find out you're wrong, what have you lost? Nothing.

Nothing? Really?

All those hours you spent worshipping a non-existent deity count as "nothing"? All that money you gave to the church counts as "nothing"? All the things you did to appease this deity that denied you pleasure (For example; not eating pork, wearing certain clothes, not eating meat on certain days, not eating during certain times, etc...) count as "nothing"?

And what about people who deny themselves or their children life saving treatments because of religious beliefs? This counts as "nothing"?

And what about people who live a spartan existence, eating little, denying themselves the company of a member of the opposite sex, rising to pray before sunrise, vowing to live in poverty due to religious beliefs? They have basically forsaken their life in deference to their deity. All this counts as "nothing"?

[Thor]

Try this: next time you go outside, look around. Look at the complexity of nature, and then ask yourself how you could be so convinced that God isn't real.

Try this: go to Africa and see people with elephantisis. Go to an institution for the developmentally disabled. Go to the cancer ward of a children's hospital. Then ask yourself how you could be so convinced that "God" is real.

[Thor]

Then, as Thor also points out, what reason do we have for having confidence in ANY of it!?

Those "fallible men" could have been just as in error in describing virgin births, crucifixions, resurrections, etc as they were in getting the "global" aspect of the flood wrong....

Why is it that no one wants to answer this question?

[Greyclouds]

I never said "the flood" put a layer of fresh water atop sea water (thus supposedly not killing the vegetation) I simply said that it does happen and for very solid scientific reasons.

Understood.

[Pudge]

Believe what you want, but I'd rather believe in God and find out I'm wrong than not believe and find out when its too late that I had screwed up big time. I choose to believe.

Because you're scared of what might happen if you don't?

That's not true belief.

[Pudge]

Look at it this way, if you believe in God and find out you're wrong, what have you lost? Nothing.

You've lost the opportunity you had in this life to think and act for yourself without fear of divine reprisal and you've given those who share your beliefs, those who preach them, power over your life.

You've enslaved yourself and put chains on your mind. In a sense, you lose everything in this life hoping for something better in the next.

[Glenn_G]

Taken literally as "world-wide", just to cover Mt. Everest, sea level would have to rise 5-1/2 miles... in 40 days! That'd take an average rain fall rate of over 30 feet an hour. Nothing would survive that. I'd be willing to bet just the atmospheric friction would generate enough heat to turn the Earth into a small star.

We can't really fault these primitive people for not having a grasp of how illogical the stories they were writing actually were, they deserve our understanding of their ignorance as to the workings of the universe around them... 21st century educated adults, not so much.

[NascarGirl2448]

You've lost the opportunity you had in this life to think and act for yourself without fear of divine reprisal and you've given those who share your beliefs, those who preach them, power over your life.
You've enslaved yourself and put chains on your mind. In a sense, you lose everything in this life hoping for something better in the next.

HUH? I don't feel "enslaved" at all.

[NascarGirl2448]

Because you're scared of what might happen if you don't?

That's not true belief.

I'm not afraid of anything.

[NascarGirl2448]

Try this: go to Africa and see people with elephantisis. Go to an institution for the developmentally disabled. Go to the cancer ward of a children's hospital. Then ask yourself how you could be so convinced that "God" is real.

I am still convinced that God is real. People with developmental disabilities, while some may never be able to be completely independent, can contribute plenty to society in other ways. They have talents that they use to make positive contributions to society, they are able to volunteer in their communities and even hold jobs, and some are able to live completely on their own, with people to offer support services as they are needed.

Also, cancer is a horrible disease, but watching children who bravely battle this horrible disease is further proof that God does indeed exist and he is the one who gave the doctors who treat those children the wisdom to learn and do research to combat the cancer. When it doesn't work, the child's family can be comforted knowing that their child is now one of God's angels and is no longer suffering, but they are in heaven and happy.

[NascarGirl2448]

And what if YOU'RE wrong? What if you die and discover that Allah is the one true god and he's angry because you didn't believe in him?

Pascal's Wager is a poor bet.

I highly doubt Allah is indeed the one true god. There was a time when people believed that Zeus would strike them with a lightning bolt if he got upset at them. Where is Zeus today? Not to mention that the Bible is the only holy book that has stood the test of time. I think I'm pretty safe where I am, thank you.

[Thor]

I am still convinced that God is real.

I have no doubt.

People with developmental disabilities, while some may never be able to be completely independent, can contribute plenty to society in other ways.

Yes. And blind people can "contribute to society" as well. This fails to explain why this supposedly "loving" deity would stand by and do nothing while people are forced to live less than whole lives.

They have talents that they use to make positive contributions to society, they are able to volunteer in their communities and even hold jobs, and some are able to live completely on their own, with people to offer support services as they are needed.


But wouldn't these people much rather live a whole life? And your deity does nothing to change it.

Also, cancer is a horrible disease, but watching children who bravely battle this horrible disease is further proof that God does indeed exist and he is the one who gave the doctors who treat those children the wisdom to learn and do research to combat the cancer.

And what about children who DON'T "bravely battle this horrible disease"? What about kids who are fearful and cry all the time? And "God" absolutely did NOT "give the doctors". If you believe that, where were these doctors 200 years ago? Why do we have life saving treatments now but people who lived a century ago were basically screwed? It's because of advances in medical science that we have these doctors and treatments, not the gifts of some deity.

When it doesn't work, the child's family can be comforted knowing that their child is now one of God's angels and is no longer suffering, but they are in heaven and happy.

Oh, please. You have no way of knowing for a fact that heaven is a real place. This is simply a meaningless platitude.

[Thor]

I highly doubt Allah is indeed the one true god.

And what makes you say that? Over a billion Muslims would disagree with you.

There was a time when people believed that Zeus would strike them with a lightning bolt if he got upset at them

And today people think your god will strike them dead if he gets upset with them.

Where is Zeus today?

Who's to say that Zeus isn't real? Maybe he's sitting above the clouds completely ticked off that hardly anyone prays to him anymore.

Not to mention that the Bible is the only holy book that has stood the test of time.

What is your criteria for "standing the test of time"? Because the Bible contains many demonstrable falsehoods. Not to mention that a billion Muslims would argue that the Koran is the only holy book that has stood the test of time.

I think I'm pretty safe where I am, thank you.

And a billion Muslims think they're safe. Somebody has to be wrong....

[NascarGirl2448]

Oh, please. You have no way of knowing for a fact that heaven is a real place. This is simply a meaningless platitude.

Go to a bookstore, pick up and READ "90 Minutes in Heaven." Its a true story of a minister who was in a horrific car accident and while declared "dead" by medical personnel at the scene, only to come back to life 90 minutes later. If that doesn't convince you that heaven in indeed real, something ain't right in Georgia

[NascarGirl2448]

And what makes you say that? Over a billion Muslims would disagree with you.

And terrorists think they'll be in heaven with 72 virgins. They're wrong.

[Thor]

Go to a bookstore, pick up and READ "90 Minutes in Heaven." Its a true story of a minister who was in a horrific car accident and while declared "dead" by medical personnel at the scene, only to come back to life 90 minutes later. If that doesn't convince you that heaven in indeed real, something ain't right in Georgia

How am I to know this story isn't complete fiction? Maybe this person is lying.

How do I know it wasn't an hallucination? Test pilots have experienced hallucinations when they blacked out under extreme G-forces.

And he was supposedly "dead" for 90 minutes? So what? There have been recorded cases of people being revived after 90 minutes of apparent death.

Anecdotal evidence is pretty weak. Ya got anything else?

[Thor]

And terrorists think they'll be in heaven with 72 virgins. They're wrong.

Hmmmm..... so you think every Muslim who prays to Allah is "wrong"?

Well, they think you're wrong.

Like I said, it's an absolute certainty that SOMEONE is wrong.

[NascarGirl2448]

How am I to know this story isn't complete fiction? Maybe this person is lying.

Or maybe some people have a hard time believing.

How do I know it wasn't an hallucination? Test pilots have experienced hallucinations when they blacked out under extreme G-forces.

I don't think that's the same thing.

And he was supposedly "dead" for 90 minutes? So what? There have been recorded cases of people being revived after 90 minutes of apparent death.

That's the point of the book. The man was dead was for 90 minutes, and in that 90 minutes, experienced what being in Heaven is really like, before being revived, and has now written a book about what he experienced.

Anecdotal evidence is pretty weak. Ya got anything else?

"Anecdotal evidence?" I guess some people just don't realize that Heaven is real, and will have a rude awakening.

[NascarGirl2448]

Hmmmm..... so you think every Muslim who prays to Allah is "wrong"?

Well, they think you're wrong.

Like I said, it's an absolute certainty that SOMEONE is wrong.

I think the muslim community needs to be shown the error of their ways, but its up to them whether they want to spend eternity in Heaven or not. Just because a bunch of people get sucked in by the so-called "religion of peace" does not mean they are right.

[Greyclouds]

I highly doubt Allah is indeed the one true god. There was a time when people believed that Zeus would strike them with a lightning bolt if he got upset at them. Where is Zeus today? Not to mention that the Bible is the only holy book that has stood the test of time. I think I'm pretty safe where I am, thank you.

What about God's warning of plagues on the populace if they did not follow his rules? Has that happened often to the non-believers of our country?

[Thor]

Or maybe some people have a hard time believing.


Yes, I do have a hard time believing incredible stories.

I don't think that's the same thing.


It absolutely IS the same thing! How do we know this man's brain didn't go into a dream-like state and begin hallucinating? Dreams and hallucinations can sure seem pretty real.

That's the point of the book. The man was dead was for 90 minutes, and in that 90 minutes, experienced what being in Heaven is really like, before being revived, and has now written a book about what he experienced.

And there CAN"T POSSIBLY be another explanation for his supposed heavenly visit? I have already offered a few.

"Anecdotal evidence?" I guess some people just don't realize that Heaven is real, and will have a rude awakening.

Yes, "anecdotal evidence". Suppose I tell you of an experience I had where I found a troll hiding in my closet. The troll opened a portal and showed me a wondrous land. He allowed me to walk through the portal and I saw fairies flitting about, gnomes playing croquet and winged horses galloping through a meadow. The gnome then told me it was "time to go" and the next thing I knew I was back standing in front of my closet!

Do you believe this story? I have just as much evidence to back up this tale as the man who supposedly spent 90 minutes in "heaven".

And I can't overlook the threat. Yeah, I'm going to have a "rude awakening" because I'm skeptical about the veracity of incredible tales. Yawn.

[Thor]

I think the muslim community needs to be shown the error of their ways

"The error of their ways"?!?

Pretty arrogant to assume that you're right and folks of other faiths are wrong.

but its up to them whether they want to spend eternity in Heaven or not.

Actually, I thought it was up to your deity to decide whether or not someone gets to spend eternity in heaven.

Just because a bunch of people get sucked in by the so-called "religion of peace" does not mean they are right.

And just because you get "sucked in" by a different religion does not mean you are right.

[Thor]

Then, as Thor also points out, what reason do we have for having confidence in ANY of it!?

Those "fallible men" could have been just as in error in describing virgin births, crucifixions, resurrections, etc as they were in getting the "global" aspect of the flood wrong....

Have to bump this. Seems like none of the believers want to answer this question. I wonder why.....

[Samm]

Obviously someone came up with that, or no one would have heard of it. Then again, I might just move to Alaska and test it for myself ;)

I think it was first published a Donald Duck comic book, which was then picked up and repeated by the main stream media. :razz: