Joe rogan has an interesting view on the ark story, lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5zfTVt9X4

Spit: Why i'm surprised, it's most likely the religious fundamentalists that are the ones dropping the big one-liners, not the other way around.

Hahaha: What i mean is this: Aristotle was learned, but with the knowledge we have today--is flawed. The earth is not in the center of the univers and everything ense is not supported on celestial spheres--at least the way he envisioned it.

My point was simply that if we look at logic (which will possibly be disproven), it's likely an ice damn broke and cause the flood as written in Noah's story. This with the evidence we find today with this level of study and knowledge. To discount this and say, "what the bible says has to be right because God said so" to me is as flawed as thinking that the ancinet civilizations DIDN'T have a firm grasp on things.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

that video was pretty good... he actually makes some points that I didn't make.

1. What about every other boat on the planet, did they not work?
2. If Noah and his family were white, where did black people come from?

Maybe, just maybe... the stories told in the Bible are not supposed to be taken as literal translations, but rather as ideals to live your life by.








Or maybe not

^^^Most of the rest of the world that considers themselves "Christian states" has this mindset.

Funny how America doesn't--especially since we consider ourselves better than eveyone else.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

I just wish people would remember that the Old Testament is an acient book of stories that were passed orally from generation to generation for hundreds of years before they were finally written down. This story as well as creation likely come from nomadic tribes people or maybe even cave men for all we know.

The New Testament on the other hand was written by the witnesses or people very close to the witnesses and is therefore much more reliable.

The only reason the Torra (Old Testament) is included in the Bioble is to provide a foundation for the New Testament to build on. It includes all of the pedictions of the coming of the Christ, and that is the real reason it is important.

PAX




PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)

^^^Except there are those that take the Old Testament Verbatim, and there are portions of the New testament that passed through word of mouth before documented.

The question is, were they predicting Christ, or Brian--born in the manger next door?


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Hahahaha: That's usually what I say, but the new testament was written at closest 50 years after the death of Jesus, or in the case of Matthew, about 300 years after.

IT doesn't detract from the overall meaning (in the case of Noah it was the old God's willingness to wipe out all but the most penitent of the world and restart... almost like a re-genesis.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I think it's a pretty cool waterpark.

The Time Warp was fun.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Hahahaha: That's usually what I say, but the new testament was written at closest 50 years after the death of Jesus, or in the case of Matthew, about 300 years after.

IT doesn't detract from the overall meaning (in the case of Noah it was the old God's willingness to wipe out all but the most penitent of the world and restart... almost like a re-genesis.

The Earth was running Windows, became corrupted and needed a re-start with a major mal-ware removal at the same time.



PAX VOBISCUM




PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)

^^^We need another one of those...


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Problem #1: Believing something you read in a book.

Problem #2: Believing something you read in a 2000-ish year old book.

Problem #3: Believing in something because you had it pounded into your head as a child.

Question: If I found a 3000 year old book proclaiming that Santa really did exsist, and flew around in a magical sleigh giving people @!#$ once a year, would you believe it?

Answer: No, because at some point everyone admitted they were playing a joke on you, and you believed them. Now, nothing can or will change your opinion.

Post Script: And yes, it really is the exact same thing. Because that is as rediculus as it sounds, and thats exactly how you guys sound to me. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Subjectivity is a b*tch.

P P S : I think the problem is, all the people that were in on the joke died in the "flood o' doom", so there wasn't anyone left to spring reality on who was left.

I actually believe everything that is written in the Bible from page 1 to the last chapter of Revelations.
Creation, the flood, Jonah, everything.
I know everyone's going to try to convince I'm everything from a Baptist to an idiot, but that's alright. (Matter of fact, i'm not Baptist)
I know that God is omnipotent, so creation, a global flood, a big fish, resurrection from the dead, they're all peanuts for him.
I can't prove it. You can't disprove it.
You can come up with 'theories' or 'a hypothesis', but at the end of the day, that's all it is.... a theory... somebody's thoughts...

You can try to dissect the Bible chapter by chapter, and you can try to prove every single part of it. By the time you're done with everything that you can come up with an explanation for, you'll realize there are many gaps.

So the remainder is going to take faith.

SPITfire:
If you have enough faith to believe the New Testament, which contains more miracles than the Old, how can you not have enough faith to believe the Old?

If you don't believe the Old, then why is it included? Why can't you just scrap it, and have a Bible that only contains the New Testament. While you're at it, why don't you scrap everything else that you can't find a 'scientific solution' for.

Don't you think that you are detracting from the power of God by believing that He cannot do it? (Creation, Jonah, Flood) Therefore, since you believe God isn't Omnipotent after all, how do you know there isn't a greater power out there? Why don't you worship this greater power?

Why is it that everything needs to be explained? Why do you need to be able to come up with a scientific explanation for everything?
Isn't this a lack of faith?

What comes next are some possible explanations that I've heard in the past. I don't worry about the need for explanations.. I have what they call 'blind faith'... but I thought I'd post these possibilities... just because....no reason really....

quote from SPITfire:

Quote:

I estimate that 12 to 15 generations had been born on the earth by the time of the flood. (Genesis chapter 5 tells us that Noah was the ninth generation from Adam.) Easily, there could have been a billion people alive on the earth by the 600th birthday of Noah.
This one tried to explain how there were enough people on Earth to require a global Flood. He doesn't provide any reproduction rates but this appears to be very rapid reproduction.

What you have to remember is that the Bible says these people would turn OLD, i.e. 700-900 years... So from say the age of 100 to i donno, 600 they could produce offspring. Let's say 1 baby every 3 years, that's roughly 200 kids per couple. Therefore, let's say half are boys and half girls. That means that 1 couple could techincally produce 100 couples. Therefore, population potentially could grow by 100x every generation. 14 generation then = 100^E14, which is more than a billion... I know my numbers are probably in the optimistic range, and 100x every generation is a little high, but then again, 100^E14 is a lot bigger than 1 000 000 000.

These billion people lived a long time, and everyone knows that great ideas don't always get carried out, because the person with the great idea might die. These people lived for a long time, and therefore had lots of time to carry out their 'great idea'. Imagine how much science they could learn in 800 years!
Noah had many years to build his ark. And I'm sure that the people of that era could have build a ship like that with no problem.

Interesting Trivia:
I read a while back that researchers found wood on top of Mount Ararat. Mount Ararat is 5000m high, and is said to be the place where Noah landed with the Ark. 5000m = 15000 feet, way way above the tree line. The odds of anyone bringing wood all the way up on top of the mountain to build something are practically zero. So how did this wood get there? Maybe with an Ark? Oh, and these are not little 2x4 chunks of wood, they are tree sized beams, ones that would take 10+ people to drag, let alone carry up a mountain... The air up there is so low in oxygen that the wood hasn't decayed. The lack of oxygen would also kill anyone trying to do too much exercise up there (like dragging a big beam).


SPITfire: When you say that the 'inbreeding' would cause major problems, consider these ideas from a Biblical perspective:

'God created man and woman, and He saw that they were good'. Therefore, they obviously had as close to perfect DNA as possible. Now the inbreeding caused the DNA to get 'weaker' as you say. But since it was so closely the same, it only made a minor difference. Since there was only 15 generations before the flood, the DNA must've been quite close to perfect yet.

Also consider that the people on the Ark were Noah and his wife, and three sons, and his sons' wives... These wives could've been from completely different families, and would've had different DNA. The kids that would marry would be cousins, not necessarily brother and sister, therefore, although still inbreeding, may not have had such a large impact...

After the flood you say the animals and everyone would be susceptible to diseases, don't you think a lot of diseases would've been wiped out as well. Especially after almost a year of being buried under water? God would only have sent healthy animals to the Ark, not ones that were carrying diseases.

You question where the dinosaurs would have fit in. Well, imagine Noah had taken a few dinosaurs on the Ark. All the other dinosaurs died. Actually, there's an article somewhere that tells of a valley in the Americas somewhere that's piled with dinosaurs that all died at exactly the same time. The way all the animals died shows that it was a rapid spur of the moment type catastrophe, much like being gassed by a volcano, or a flash flood (maybe a global flood?). Now, there are still the dinosaurs with Noah. After the flood there is no food for them to eat, and they die off also.
In the other thread you never answered someone's question about the drawings of humans fighting dinosaurs in cave drawings in Africa? Yet you seem to think that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed.




I'm just throwing the above ideas out there. I don't feel it's necessary to try and prove anything. There are things I don't know, and that's okay. There's no need to know everything. God has revealed that which is necessary, and this should be enough.
For those trying to 'prove' evolution, you will never succeed. For those trying to 'prove' creation. You will not succeed either. Fact is, you CANNOT prove either. It is all a matter of belief or faith.

For me, I believe the Bible word for word, and it has never let me down.

Quote:

Interesting Trivia:
I read a while back that researchers found wood on top of Mount Ararat. Mount Ararat is 5000m high, and is said to be the place where Noah landed with the Ark. 5000m = 15000 feet, way way above the tree line. The odds of anyone bringing wood all the way up on top of the mountain to build something are practically zero. So how did this wood get there? Maybe with an Ark? Oh, and these are not little 2x4 chunks of wood, they are tree sized beams, ones that would take 10+ people to drag, let alone carry up a mountain... The air up there is so low in oxygen that the wood hasn't decayed. The lack of oxygen would also kill anyone trying to do too much exercise up there (like dragging a big beam).

Depends which one you're talking about. The area that most people are concerning themselves with (it looks like there is actually a large boat) saying it's the ark is actually a portion of a Glacier. It happens to look like a boat.

http://www.satimagingcorp.com/gallery/quicktime-mt-ararat-low.html



Also, of the 2 expeditions that have gone to the site, both have claimed to have gotten wood from the area, but.. well...

Quote:

In 1993 CBS aired a highly sensationalized special entitled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark,", which contained a long section devoted to the claims of George Jammal, who showed what he called "sacred wood from the ark". Jammal's story of a dramatic mountain expedition which allegedly took the life of "his Polish friend Vladimir" was actually a deliberate hoax, and Jammal - who was really an actor - later revealed that his "sacred wood" was wood taken from railroad tracks in Long Beach, California, and hardened by cooking with various sauces in an oven.
- From wikipedia, Source

None of them have been able to produce independently verified and corroborated evidence of the veracity of their claims. The other major hinderance is that the Turkish Government has decided to not allow scientists to attempt to verify whether or not it actually is the Ark. The last one was a group of Texans and they claimed a lot, but there won't produce the evidence for verification, er go, it's not evidence at all.

As far as whether or not its possible: if you believe in an omnipotent God, then your faith trumps the requirement for science... the argument is moot. I don't exactly know where I stand on God: but I do know that we have a brain, and if there is a God, the utmost compliment we can pay is to use our faculties to reason out whether or not things in the books we read are allegory or fact. The fact that Christianity is descended from Jewish tradition (ie: spoken word retelling until it was committed to paper in the Torah): we're dealing with a very broad unknown. You accept some matters on faith, but I can't, it's a leap that I can't justify knowing the history of the religion and human nature.


Anyhow...

Quote:

'God created man and woman, and He saw that they were good'. Therefore, they obviously had as close to perfect DNA as possible. Now the inbreeding caused the DNA to get 'weaker' as you say. But since it was so closely the same, it only made a minor difference. Since there was only 15 generations before the flood, the DNA must've been quite close to perfect yet.

DNA is not 'weak' nor 'perfect.' It just is. The thing that most people who are pointing this ideology do not understand (you're not alone), is that DNA differs from cell to cell in some minute way: its part of the reason we have cancers and other ailments. These are usually caused by environmental factors first and not replication.... also:

Quote:

After the flood you say the animals and everyone would be susceptible to diseases, don't you think a lot of diseases would've been wiped out as well. Especially after almost a year of being buried under water? God would only have sent healthy animals to the Ark, not ones that were carrying diseases.

Again, this is not a valid ideology. There is a thing called viral emergence, and it so happens that viruses, molds, spores, fungi... these can survive in the Puerto Rico Trench (~5 miles deep), and Viruses can actually burrow into rock and lay dormant for an eon. Disease is also part and parcel of malfunction of the body: unless the animals were completely clean, and sterilized of all bacteria (this includes humans, and is really not possible because you need those bacteria to actually live) before boarding the Ark, they would have carried some sort of disease potential. Also, by that rationale: the diseases we have now would be descended from those viruses, if the people and animals on the Ark were so biologically perfect, they would have been free of disease.

Quote:

You question where the dinosaurs would have fit in. Well, imagine Noah had taken a few dinosaurs on the Ark. All the other dinosaurs died. Actually, there's an article somewhere that tells of a valley in the Americas somewhere that's piled with dinosaurs that all died at exactly the same time. The way all the animals died shows that it was a rapid spur of the moment type catastrophe, much like being gassed by a volcano, or a flash flood (maybe a global flood?). Now, there are still the dinosaurs with Noah. After the flood there is no food for them to eat, and they die off also.
In the other thread you never answered someone's question about the drawings of humans fighting dinosaurs in cave drawings in Africa? Yet you seem to think that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed.

If this was possible (which it really isn't, a world wide flood would have been a salt-water flood, and salt water even when inundating soil and other detritus will degrade bone unless the carcass is compacted in earth, and the area you're talking about (which I suspect is the Slate Range in Alberta) is actually upheaved stratified rock, meaning it looks at first blush that a lot of animals died at the same time, but realistically, you can't pin it down closer than about a 1-5000 or so years... The truth is that most scientists cannot agree on THE planet wide episode that killed the dinosaurs, best that we can currently hope for is the Asteroid impact theory... I'd rather be sure that I don't know than believe something I can't prove: Given the choice of sainted ignorance or limited knowledge, I'll take knowledge... every time.

And Dinosaurs in African cave paintings? Didn't you know that Dragons are still part of Anglo-Saxon imagery, and "beasties" are part of the Aboriginies culture.. all have a remarkably similar look, and some Dinosaurs bare a resemblance... they also come in a huge variety of shapes, sizes... etc. It's pretty thin, and it's not evidence at any rate... Kids still draw things that look like dinosaurs, does that mean that they still roam the earth? Of course not (at least, not in the species we know traditionally as dinosaurs).

Quote:

I'm just throwing the above ideas out there. I don't feel it's necessary to try and prove anything. There are things I don't know, and that's okay. There's no need to know everything. God has revealed that which is necessary, and this should be enough.
For those trying to 'prove' evolution, you will never succeed. For those trying to 'prove' creation. You will not succeed either. Fact is, you CANNOT prove either. It is all a matter of belief or faith.

Actually, evolution can be proved through extrapolation, creation not so much. Evolution presupposes that there will be mutation of an organism to suit its environment, and those that can evolve to suit that environment will be most likely to survive to procreate and continue to evolve to suit their environment. It's plainly evident when you realize that there are diseases that become drug resistant, or inversely when you consider there are shellfish that are undergoing devolution to extinction... basically their genes are mutating to destroy themselves.

Quote:

For me, I believe the Bible word for word, and it has never let me down.

Placing faith in an adulterated book (follow the council of Nicea's editing and creation of the canonical bible... by a pagan Emperor) is tenuous. I don't doubt for a moment that it's a great book and gives meaning and guidance: but I'd rather learn about the way things don't work for myself. Very, very little in the bible can be independently verified, but, you can apply the scientific method to assertions and observe outcomes and extrapolate. It's okay to be wrong in the scientific method.

I mean, my favourite quote from a scientist (and prolific author) named Isaac Asimov goes something like: The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'

The problem is that once religion is proved wrong, it's back is broken.

The other thing: "Science without faith is lame, religion without faith is blind." Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

If you have enough faith to believe the New Testament, which contains more miracles than the Old, how can you not have enough faith to believe the Old?

Easy. Miracles attributed to one man or a group of people (the bread anf fish miracle, Jesus cures people and walks on water) are far more believable, and far harder to disprove, than worldwide events that would have had a catastropic effect on the globe and it's life. Plus the fact that creation and the Flood would have left evidence on the planet. There is no evidence that the world is 7K years and absolutely no evidence that there was a Flood. I'd love to see some of this "evidence" if you can find any. The Bible is not evidence.

Quote:

If you don't believe the Old, then why is it included? Why can't you just scrap it, and have a Bible that only contains the New Testament. While you're at it, why don't you scrap everything else that you can't find a 'scientific solution' for.

Alot of religious texts include creation myths and even flood stories. But, they are all different in their details. Don't you think that if these events happened, that the stories would at least be the same?
I didn't say the whole Old Testament is wrong, JUST the creation story and the flood story, and maybe the Whale story. Most of the Old Testament is true (in my opinion) as far as David, Solomon, Abraham, Moses, Isiah, etc. This reads as "history" and is far more believable. Before you mention it, the parting of the Red Sea was mis-translated, Moses actually passed through the "Reed Sea" which was a marsh and tidally influenced, not a huge water mass.

Quote:

Don't you think that you are detracting from the power of God by believing that He cannot do it? (Creation, Jonah, Flood) Therefore, since you believe God isn't Omnipotent after all, how do you know there isn't a greater power out there? Why don't you worship this greater power?

Poor argument... I believe God created the Universe 12 billion years ago (as in creating the Big Bang and all the Laws of the Universe) and then letting evolution and the laws of physics take over from there. So, abstractly, he DID create the Universe! I don't belittle God's power at all, but God must be a deciever to leave nothing of these events on Earth and make it as if the Earth was very old. Also, I do not see a problem with God interfering in Earth's history. He may have planted the first cells on Earth 4 billion years ago.

Quote:

Why is it that everything needs to be explained? Why do you need to be able to come up with a scientific explanation for everything?
Isn't this a lack of faith?

Obviously, alot of theoretical science requires faith. But it is human nature to try and explain things. And science has a great track record. Most of the advances humans have accomplished are a result of science. There are plenty of proven laws in science, many more than the theories. I assume that since science has done such a good job explaining most things, that it could explain our origins as well. Much better than simply believing a Book and nothing else. I'd say the "faith" in the Bible is much more extreme than "faith" in evolution. We will never "prove" either so just look at the existing evidence.

Quote:

What comes next are some possible explanations that I've heard in the past. I don't worry about the need for explanations.. I have what they call 'blind faith'... but I thought I'd post these possibilities... just because....no reason really....

I'd call that "scared of the truth" or "being naive". If you doubt your faith in God because a couple ambiguous stories are false, then your faith in God was poor to begin with. Can you prove that the whole Bible is the true Word of God? Were you there to see if the creation myth and the Flood weren't added to the Bible to "spice it up". After all, all other religious texts have a story... the Bible couldn't be different. And you believe that ancient man would have been able to write down how it REALLY happened. Imagine God describing evolution and the Universe to ancient man! lol

Quote:

What you have to remember is that the Bible says these people would turn OLD, i.e. 700-900 years... So from say the age of 100 to i donno, 600 they could produce offspring. Let's say 1 baby every 3 years, that's roughly 200 kids per couple. Therefore, let's say half are boys and half girls. That means that 1 couple could techincally produce 100 couples. Therefore, population potentially could grow by 100x every generation. 14 generation then = 100^E14, which is more than a billion... I know my numbers are probably in the optimistic range, and 100x every generation is a little high, but then again, 100^E14 is a lot bigger than 1 000 000 000.

you start with a flawed statement and you assume perfect exponential growth, ignoring carrying capacity and assuming proximity of populations and the lack of disasters or disease. There is no evidence whatsoever of people living that long. Can you provide one example of an ancient skeleton being 600 years old? On the contrary, lifespans decreased as we go back in time. You also assume humans are rabbits in these calculations. I think the woman would be pretty "worn out" having 200 babies. With this many related babies running around it would be hard to avoid hooking up with your sisters or cousins, which is inbreeding. But again, with hundreds of these "super-humans" running around 300+ years old, we should see some physical proof of this, right? And I thought these ages were only possible PRE-FLOOD?????

Quote:

I read a while back that researchers found wood on top of Mount Ararat. Mount Ararat is 5000m high, and is said to be the place where Noah landed with the Ark. 5000m = 15000 feet, way way above the tree line. The odds of anyone bringing wood all the way up on top of the mountain to build something are practically zero. So how did this wood get there? Maybe with an Ark? Oh, and these are not little 2x4 chunks of wood, they are tree sized beams, ones that would take 10+ people to drag, let alone carry up a mountain... The air up there is so low in oxygen that the wood hasn't decayed. The lack of oxygen would also kill anyone trying to do too much exercise up there (like dragging a big beam).

after thousands of years of glacial movement the Ark would have moved from it's original landing site and down the mountain. And you believe that he let his crew and cargo off on the top of a glacier?? This would be the worst place to let off a cargo. It's frigid cold and there is no food. And a few chunks of wood on the top of a mountain isn't proof. I want to see enough wood to make a whole ship. And maybe these "tree-sized" beams were actually ancient trees frozen in the glacier? Have you heard of the site in Turkey where they think they found the Ark too? A classic example of "if at first you don't succeed, try again (somewhere else)"

Quote:

'God created man and woman, and He saw that they were good'. Therefore, they obviously had as close to perfect DNA as possible. Now the inbreeding caused the DNA to get 'weaker' as you say. But since it was so closely the same, it only made a minor difference. Since there was only 15 generations before the flood, the DNA must've been quite close to perfect yet.

it doesn't matter if Adam and Eves were the "best DNA" in all history. We all have a fixed number of chromosomes and DNA loci to code for our traits. Do you think that amazingly, Adam and Eve had more DNA than a normal person? If so, where are those people today since DNA doesn't just "disappear". Even if Adam and Eve had "perfect" DNA, then would still have a pitifully small gene pool when they reproduced. Every individual from then on would have either Eve's trait or Adam's trait, and no new variation (other people) was available to dilute the gene pool. Compare this to an evolutionary scenario, when there were thousands of people interbreeding, all with unique DNA. The population is healthier and more diverse. And can you explain how DNA gets weaker? There is no such thing.

Quote:

Also consider that the people on the Ark were Noah and his wife, and three sons, and his sons' wives... These wives could've been from completely different families, and would've had different DNA. The kids that would marry would be cousins, not necessarily brother and sister, therefore, although still inbreeding, may not have had such a large impact...

So, you are accepting of being descended from inbreeding hicks? I guess it's OK to marry sisters and cousins then since our great ancestors did. And the variation due to three families was insignificant. How did they turn into the various races of our planet without evolution occurring? There is evidence, science-speaking, that our species went through a population bottleneck many thousands of years ago, but this meant that we had a population of several million, then went to a few dozen or a hundred, then recovered from there. But we think this was due to a catastropic natural event (ice age, volcanoes, asteroid, disease).

Quote:

After the flood you say the animals and everyone would be susceptible to diseases, don't you think a lot of diseases would've been wiped out as well. Especially after almost a year of being buried under water? God would only have sent healthy animals to the Ark, not ones that were carrying diseases.

Diseases are more resistant to disaster than any animal. If you assume plants and insects "rafted" to safety during the flood, then microbes could easily be carried too. Not to mention that the ark would be a cesspool of microbes. And all of us "carry" diseases in heterozygous genotypes, you too are carrying diseases that may be manifested in your offspring. Nothing is truly healthy.

Quote:

You question where the dinosaurs would have fit in. Well, imagine Noah had taken a few dinosaurs on the Ark. All the other dinosaurs died. Actually, there's an article somewhere that tells of a valley in the Americas somewhere that's piled with dinosaurs that all died at exactly the same time. The way all the animals died shows that it was a rapid spur of the moment type catastrophe, much like being gassed by a volcano, or a flash flood (maybe a global flood?). Now, there are still the dinosaurs with Noah. After the flood there is no food for them to eat, and they die off also.

Dinosaurs were not on the ark. It didn't happen. If anything dinsaurs were wiped out by the Flood and nothing else. Why carry something and care for it when it determined to die off anyway? They would have eaten the deer, cats, and other mammals once they left the boat. The dinos would have been the most likely to SURVIVE since they were the top predators. Herbivores would have died quickly but so would ALL the herbivorous animals (no plants on Earth). And that event you mention was JUST a flash flood. A common event millions of years ago.

Quote:

In the other thread you never answered someone's question about the drawings of humans fighting dinosaurs in cave drawings in Africa? Yet you seem to think that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed.

There is NO evidence that they did. Cave drawings are just drawings... people doodle all the time. They see a fantastic creature and attmept to draw it. Not everyone was a great artist. Look at somekid's drawings, and even some adult drawings, of things like airplanes, people, and animals. They look nothing like the real thing unless you are an artist. I could draw a jackalope on a cave and people like you will say in 3000 years that it actually existed. Dinosaurs and humans have a terrible history of forgery. The tracks supposedly showing human rpints with dinos was faked (they modified dino prints to look human). The "Inca Stones" showing humans riding dinos were faked by South Americans looking to sell to tourists. There has not been one human fossil taken in dino strata, nor has dino strata been taken with humans in it. The fossil record is consistent with science only.

Quote:

I'm just throwing the above ideas out there. I don't feel it's necessary to try and prove anything. There are things I don't know, and that's okay. There's no need to know everything. God has revealed that which is necessary, and this should be enough.

it's painfully close-minded to believe in something with no evidence whatsoever. Why not believe in the tooth fairy, Nessy, and Santa while your at it? The same logic applies to these.

To finish, God is not going to judge you for what you believe. He will judge you by how you live your life and how you treat others. Evolution is not on the Ten Commandments. If it all turns out to be false, the first thing I'll ask God is how He did it all and didn't leave a trace...

Intrersting read on the subject....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071118/sc_nm/farming_flood_dc_1;_ylt=AkfuZA6mk8TJH0vYjWZbkn4E1vAI


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

yeah, I saw a show on the "Real Garden of Eden" and how it all was traced back to an ancient Sumerian myth. Almost every detail of the Garden of Eden story and Gilgamesh's Flood match the Bible story.

Anways, they say that they have narrowed down the location of Eden to the Persian Gulf. When the sea levels were lower around 6000 years ago (due to the Ice Age), there were four rivers coming together where the Garden of Eden once was. When the Ice Sheets retreated, the sea level rise caused the whole area to Flood (kind of like the Black Sea Event), and it isn't a stretch to say that the whole flood story originated from that catastrophe. Scientists believe the narrow "mouths" of each basin caused a rapid, catastrophic flood event rather than a gradual rise. They also said that this "warming" period coincides with the rise of agrarian lifestyles in early man and that "Adam and Eve" was a metaphor for this settling of nomadic man in river valleys. Fits well into the timing for the rise of Mesopotamian civilization and it fits the Genesis stories very well.

When you see rational explanations like this, it's hard to believe that people try and make it look like these Genesis stories were literal!

Any way you slice it--what was once taken as verbatim as fact is usually refuted when new knowledge comes to mind. But what i love about existance is that there's literally an infinitte amount of knowledge that can be learned, so there's contantly new discoveries...and meanwhile, since every question answered always asks a new one, there is no way that any faith can be fully refuted.

Hell for all we know, Zeus and Entourage (the Greed deity expansion pak) may be the real answer...Helios and Apollo may just forget to drop into Seatttle from time-to-time (it's that damned left turn at Albequerque) .




Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Apollo is... a... Rabbit?




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Yes...a most foul rodent.

(actually, a lagomorph.)


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

simply put... fiction. so is "god"

The main issue with this, is the idea that vengeful, absentee father figure wants all of his "children" to behave and love one another.

The ideals that humanity had supposedly abandoned caused ultimate vengence on the inhabitants of the earth?
-Why would an omnipotent being capable of creating a viable planetary ecosystem in 6 days take such a long period of time to flood said planet as a means of cleansing. Wouldn't a simple wave of the hand(wand,limb, tenticle,phaser) accomplish the same thing?(Sodam and Gamorah) With a global flood, the aftermath would be worse than anything that could be recovered from by higher life forms. All plant life would be destroyed (except for an errant olive branch apparently). Soil would be saturated to the point it would be useless for years as salinity would comprimise the growth potential. Unless you go back to the point that a new ecosystem could be set up in a few days allowing for uninterupted life cycles to continue.

-Given the area that this story/myth/event happened, the materials required to build such a structure would not have been available. Even using modern technology a project of this magnitude out of local materials would be improbable. Not to mention the structural integrety of such a ship with techniques of the time would not have been able to survive. Why not create a bubble of useable area and then destroy the rest, instead of continually adding food to the stomachs of the saved, removing waste from the various organs, and holding the boat together by divine intervention?

-The time frame is also suspect. There is written history that is older then the family trees of the bible(We were already here before said creator made us). Not to mention Carbon-14 dating showing life on this planet existing for millions of years, several factors of magnitude larger than the 6000-10000 years that could be accounted for through Bible dating. However there are two answers that could be used to explain this matter. First, Human existance was deposited into a viable ecosphere at the expense of any competitive lifeforms that had history before we showed up. Secondly, the earth was created in 6 days to the specifications of a 4.5 billion year old ball of solar elements to confuse it's inhabitants and give people something to talk about.

Stories have been used throughout the history of communication to explain everything. Even before language, drawings were used to pass on ideas and innovations. They were treated as fact because there wasn't a better explaination for them. ex. Fire must be from the gods because it is to useful to be an accident and to damaging to be misused. There was no possible way to make the leap from that point to the concept that adding energy to a combustable mixture can release the energy of the fuel allowing the heat and light that was inside of it out into the world. They cannot be treated literally, because they were flawed by design. Early on through human evolution(sorry if this word offends), it was figured out that if the tribe worked together, they survived. If they spent time fighting amongst themselves there would be many more problems. Survival leads to traits being passed on, physical as well as mental and social. Therefore stories started being passed down that something must have made put people on this rock....something from the sky because the that's where the fire comes from as a gift in small doses, punishment in large, depending on much thanks was given to be allowed to be on their little piece of the rock. Superstition and fear made people follow those who could offer explainations of events. And all of a sudden stories became culture, culture became society, and society became civilization. But the ideas behind the stories continued. Survival made instincts neccessary, instincts created behavior patterns, and behavior patterns were passed on through stories as instincts were phased out of daily life. It's amazing how modern morality mirrors survival instincts after danger of dying out is taken from the equation. But that's all they are......just stories to help the people who hear them live better lives. If you need to be reminded how to be a decent human being every week for 2 hrs, more power to you. If modern reality is to much to take that you need to take refuge inside other people's ideas....than think on this.....If it only took 15 generations(from previous post) for everything to go down hill and need a reboot. How is it that we have progressed to this point with only one?

I think I got off topic.......with the amount of cold medicine I'm taking, I'm suprised I'm still awake.....This made sense at the time of writing but that's not saying much.....just my 2cp.

Phil: you forgot "Noodly appendage"

Even so, given that people write about "facts" of the day beased upon the prevaling knowledge. We have better knowledge of what happened, but there are still people that adhere to the hypothesis that millennia of specie-wide understanding can't trump the so-called "facts" out lined in a bood that was "ordained" by a so-called "higher power" exactly as it was written, since the writing and the ordination had to be done by humans, it makes it as fallible as humans themselves.

Even so, it was said that the Romans "Conqured the world" but that was only the world known to them. If we take the story of Noah in the likley context, for whatever reason, he could have built the arc to carry two of every specie he knew of, and as paleoarchaologist and paleogeologists have surmised could have happned, causing many days of flooding in which he survived and because of the scale, wound up on top of a mountain and found a fig bough.

However, "Fish stories" are as old as man himself. and it's likely that since it was written generations after the happening, likley accounts have been distorted. But you tack on the understanding of the day--would Noah, who likley was in the Middle East, know of Continentla glaciers? Would Noah have known about Global Warming as we know it? Or, if the above article was indeed correct--would Noah have known about North America--much less the Corridellian (sp?) Ice sheet? No. Noah would have used the best explanations that were avalaible to him at the time.

Unfortunatley, the tale was relegated to a book that some find incapable of being proven wrong, despite very compelling evidence to the contrary.

That, however, doesn't deny the exitance of God in this context. How do we know that God wasn't the cause of the huge chunk breaking off of the Corridelian Ice Sheet and causing it?

IMHO, both sides don't need to get violent on the issue. The pro-noah people should relaize that the bible telling is not likely the way it happened, and the pro-natual disaster side shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good story


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

God may have put a footnote in the bible saying that the stories of creation and the global Flood were supposed to be parables but I think He didn't think Man was that stupid.