Noah's Ark

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Here's a perfect example- if a 747 jet landed in some remote village in South america or Africa- if those villagers that never seen a 747 jet before- how would they describe it? The closes thing they could possible compare a 747 jet is a bird? If those villagers were to write or pass this story down wouldn't they say a huge bird that roared like thunder(sound of a 747 jet engine) and had wins over 100 feet and let's say the jet had people on the plane- the villagers might add the Bird swallowed people in it's belly(describing passengers inside the plane)- now if someone 10 years from now were to find that writing- they would laugh and say oh this is a fable- there's no bird that has wings of 100 feet and swallows humans- but overall it was just misunderstood translation

they could always Google it ....or check Wikipedia.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by JCM800

they could always Google it ....or check Wikipedia.

people of antiquity didn't have that luxury. In their case, they only saw the trees, not the forest, and certainly not the universes. In short their world view was limited to what was happening to their region locally.

The bible is a story of "exaggerated" tales. Bear in mind that these stories were told orally for centuries until it was finally written down. It is very likely stories like the flood were embellished and exaggerated.

there are several examples of exaggeration in the bible, the extremely old ages (500yrs/800yrs/etc.) of the key figures in the bible/torah is one example.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Old-T not true- not every Christian or Jew believe the Old Testament is literal-I personally think it's misunderstood interpretation- it's very difficult for someone to write a book written many thousands of years ago and expect people in modern times to make perfect sense of it- heck they have words in those days that don't even exist on our days now and vice versa..

In that case you and I may not be that far apart on this issue.

"Back then" oral tradition and oral history among most civilizations was focused on the message much more than the "facts". I personally believe the bible and torah are filled with good messages. I get frustrated at clergy of all denominations who lose the message because they fixate on the details the authors probably thought were insignificant.

I have a Native American friend who is an important elder/story teller for his tribe. He invited me to a gathering where he told some of their important creation myths and other stories. Afterwards he and I were talking, and without trying to be insulting I asked him (he is a physicist) how literal the stories were. He laughed and with a grin said (I'm paraphrasing), "Only White Men look for the unimportant facts and miss the good parts".

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Are you seriously considering the possibilities of a global flood and a cargo vessel that might survive it, or are you simply looking for any excuse to try and discredit the Bible? If Bible-bashing is important to you, it seems like maybe you should address the actual text, rather than arbitrary interpretations.

WHAT? Address the actual text? Rather than arbitrary interpretations? Do you know what the word "arbitrary" means? It means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system".

What exactly is a "random interpretation"? Translating the French "Je suis fatigue" (I'm tired) into English as "Doorknob map an cover trunks" is a arbitrary interpretation. I'm pretty sure that Biblical scholars try to get as close possible to the actual meaning of the original text. So, no, they are not arbitrary.

But returning to your original idea, why don't YOU tell us what the actual text is? Or have you just been reading "arbitrary interpretations" your whole life?

And I AM seriously questioning the possibility of a world wide flood. I asked you before - and you did not answer - where all the water came from and where it disappeared to. If the earth had another 30,000 feet of water on it - enough to cover Everest - less than 6,000 years ago, I want to know where all the water went to. Can you answer that?

And I AM seriously questioning the possibility of a "cargo vessel" big enough to carry two of EVERY animal on earth, PLUS the weight of a year of food to feed all of them, PLUS the weight of enough seeds to regrow every species of plant - all of which would have died after being under 30,000 feet of water for most of a year.

I asked all of those questions before and you never answered any of them. Bojulay tried to bluff his way out of them by saying the flood just occurred in one local area, but he has not offered any explanation how water deep enough to cover the highest mountains could be kept local.

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

On the other hand, try to remember that history IS interpretation!

So, the Bible is just a history subject to interpretation, then? Not the divine Word of God?

So, does that mean that it could be interpreted incorrectly regarding homosexuality and that maybe it is NOT a sin?

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Can you prove that meteors wiped out the dinosaur?
Science indicates that a very large meteor struck Mexico near the Yucatan Peninsula about the time that dinosaurs experienced a mass extinction. About 65 million years ago. This is the most reliable theory, but nothing is proven since no one was around to witness it. it is a mystery that is being piece together.

But, more importantly, what can RELIGION "prove"? Nothing, right? Let's try to remember that the burden of proof is on YOU regarding the Noah myth, since you are the one promulgating that ridiculous idea.

How many Meteors fell?
Apparently one big one caused the extinction event. Why?.

Were all the dinosaurs in one place?
No. Do they have to be?

Are you under the assumption that the meteor killed them by actually hitting all of them?

The meteor create a series of shocks that made the earth's environment unable to sustain dinosaurs. The initial impact create a cataclysmic explosion that killed all life for hundreds of miles around. It blasted millions of tons of rock hundreds or even thousands of miles into space. That debris fell back to earth eventually, but it reentered the earths atmosphere at many thousands of miles per hour over large areas of the earth\. This superheated the atmosphere in many places, killing many more animals that were not underwater or underground. The entire earth's atmosphere filled will soot and toxic gases. The atmosphere darkened and the planet cooled. The oceans were also poisoned by the same soot and gas. Plant life died off in huge amounts. This lead to mass starvation over a period of years - both on the land and in the water. Big animals had the hardest time surviving.. Small hardy mammals, especially small burrowing ones did better.

Couldn't the flying dinosaurs made it to safer places?
No. See above. There were no safe places.

Weren't their sea dinosaurs and mega Sharks that supposed to have existed that were larger than sperm whales of today? How did they die off? Did the meteors somehow hit the under the sea?
See above. The oceans were poisoned just like the atmosphere. Small fish died and big fish died. Both from poisoning and starvation.

Now go back and explain Noah's Ark.

Also, what is your prediction for how long it will take you to ask the SAME questions you just asked above, while pretending you never got answers to them?

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I am still waiting on a logical response- what came first the male or the female? Or did they evolve at the same time? If they evolved in the same time- what are the chances that every species-with the exception of 1 % of asexual creatures like earthworms were able to "evolve" opposite counterparts that amazingly had all of the right parts to reproduce? Was it design or chance?

Once again, you post a bullshit FALSE setup to a question. Where is your proof that all species existed first and THEN male-female reproduction occurred?

The likely scenario is that asexual reproduction of single cell organisms came first. Later, some type of microscopic organism began to reproduce by exchanging DNA with other members of its species.

But that is not anything that we would recognize as male-female, but rather the start of it.

Eventually, this continued to occur in more complex, microscopic organisms, until something like worms or slugs evolved that had distinct male and female genders. The problem is that those tiny organisms did not have skeletons, so they did not leave fossils behind.

By the time we get to creatures that are big enough to have skeletons, the male-female dichotomy has already been established.

So your bullshit premise about all species suddenly splitting into male and female is just that - bullshit.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Old-T not true- not every Christian or Jew believe the Old Testament is literal-I personally think it's misunderstood interpretation- it's very difficult for someone to write a book written many thousands of years ago and expect people in modern times to make perfect sense of it- heck they have words in those days that don't even exist on our days now and vice versa.

Here's a perfect example- if a 747 jet landed in some remote village in South america or Africa- if those villagers that never seen a 747 jet before- how would they describe it? The closes thing they could possible compare a 747 jet is a bird? If those villagers were to write or pass this story down wouldn't they say a huge bird that roared like thunder(sound of a 747 jet engine) and had wins over 100 feet and let's say the jet had people on the plane- the villagers might add the Bird swallowed people in it's belly(describing passengers inside the plane)- now if someone 10 years from now were to find that writing- they would laugh and say oh this is a fable- there's no bird that has wings of 100 feet and swallows humans- but overall it was just misunderstood translation and that's how I look at the Bible- real events told in different times by people who had to describe things how they saw it.

No. That's NOT a perfect example. That is a shitty example.

The ancient people who wrote the Bible were not describing a never-before seen event or thing (like a 747) for which they did not have words. Rather they were describing things they were VERY familiar with and that they had words for.

The ancient Hebrews knew what "rain" was. They knew what "40 days" was. They know what boats were - even really big ones, like the ark. They knew what "two of every every animal" meant and they knew what a cubit was. They were not incomprehensible phenomena to them.

So when they wrote that it rained for 40 days and nights, they meant that over a duration of 40 consecutive 24 hour periods, it rained non-stop. There a no translation issues there.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Wow. What complete made up nonsense.

Genesis says that the RAIN covered ALL the highest mountain peaks, NOT just Ararat. The Ark supposedly finally settled on a mountain in the Ararat area.

So, did an earthquake lift ALL the mountain peaks?

And is there ANY geological record of a glacier being in the area of the Middle East in the last 6000 years? NOPE.

It is not made up nonsense. it is basic geology. Do mountains get uplifted? Hell yes! People have found ancient sea fossils on mountains. the mountains get uplifted due to plate tectonics over a period of ages some faster, some move slower.

as for a sudden uplift resulting from a powerful earthquake, yes that is possible. the type of uplift was known as a vertical side slip. If a powerful earthquake, 8+ on Richter scale, shakes up this part of the land pretty bad, in this instance, one parts of one land would drop by 10 feet, whereas the others side of the land would rise by 10 feet. This example happened in Fairbanks, Alaska in the 1950's or 1960's. (not sure what year exactly, but too lazy too look it up.)

The fact that there was no glacial ice in the mid-east in the 12,000 year range is fairly irrelevant. Any that happens in the North polar regions affects every region south of the ice line. Melting ice from the glaciers is the source of many flood legends. Where did you think all that water came from? Rain? Please. its only part of story. You and the creationist both miss the point about the where the water came from.

I wrote that the black sea region might've had a double whammy. I mis-wrote, a triple whammy. I forgot about the rain. Here's what I think happens and its based on 2 theories put forward by 2 geologists.

It starts with the Glacial ice melting, these things are 3-4 miles high and covered much of Europe, and I think half of the Russian landmass. the outer Glacial ice mass can act as a temporary dam if the huge lake of water was melting in the interior. At some point the ice dam will break. My guess is that the European glacial ice melted and flooded europe and eventually flooded the Mediterranean sea causing its sea level to rise enough to over flow the black sea region. there probably was a thunderstorm that hit the area at the same time, probably lasting 1 - 2 weeks off an on.. and then you have flood waters from the melting ice from the Russian glacier making its way south towards the mid-east region. Water will go where it wants to go -- path of least resistance.

this is assuming the translation of the bible/torah was accurate which probably wasn't; so some words got lost in translation which was Bojulay's point.

And you're assuming a "literal" interpretation of this bible which was not Bojulay's point, nor was it mine either.

The bible has certain linguistic problems in that it is filled with embellishments and exaggerations that were told orally by memory over time before it was written down.

One needs an open mind, not a closed mind, to see this as a history book.

As a history book of the Jewish people, some locations mentioned in the bible/torah have been confirmed as fact due to the discovery of a number of ruins found with Hebrew inscriptions. so, the story told in this case probably did happen in-spite of it being filled with exaggerations and embellishments.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No. That's NOT a perfect example. That is a shitty example.

The ancient people who wrote the Bible were not describing a never-before seen event or thing (like a 747) for which they did not have words. Rather they were describing things they were VERY familiar with and that they had words for.

The ancient Hebrews knew what "rain" was. They knew what "40 days" was. They know what boats were - even really big ones, like the ark. They knew what "two of every every animal" meant and they knew what a cubit was. They were not incomprehensible phenomena to them.

So when they wrote that it rained for 40 days and nights, they meant that over a duration of 40 consecutive 24 hour periods, it rained non-stop. There a no translation issues there.

I'm more inclined to think the Hebrews tellers exaggerated and embellished the Noah story.

however, I'm aware that this story was probably stolen from the Sumerian legend of Gilgamesh's flood tale.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i hereby found the Church of Hooktardology. in the spirit (sic) of L Ron Hubbard, i will file for tax exempt status and charge you all zillions for my auditing classes. i will show you the true meaning of being a hooktard, as long as it makes me zillions of money.

i will buy a yacht and my Sea Org will look like this ..



and this ..

I like those #1 & #2 babes. exceptionally hot. Yummy! oh we're off topic aren't we? LOL!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

It is not made up nonsense. it is basic geology. Do mountains get uplifted? Hell yes! People have found ancient sea fossils on mountains. the mountains get uplifted due to plate tectonics over a period of ages some faster, some move slower.

as for a sudden uplift resulting from a powerful earthquake, yes that is possible. the type of uplift was known as a vertical side slip. If a powerful earthquake, 8+ on Richter scale, shakes up this part of the land pretty bad, in this instance, one parts of one land would drop by 10 feet, whereas the others side of the land would rise by 10 feet. This example happened in Fairbanks, Alaska in the 1950's or 1960's. (not sure what year exactly, but too lazy too look it up.)

The sudden slip faults that you referred to happen along fault lines and occur once in a blue moon. The massive Indonesian tsunami last decade was one of the most extreme examples and it was a slip fault of about 10 feet. And they are as likely to slip sideways as they are vertically.

Sudden slop faults are not the mechanism that creates big mountain ranges. Generally, mountains get uplifted at the rate of inches or millimeters per year when one tectonic plate collides with another tectonic plate. Like the way India is slowly pushing northward into the belly of Asia and raising the Himalaya in front of it like a snowplow piles up snow.

All of the world's mountain ranges took millions of years to form and have been in existence for millions of years. The sea bed fossils found in the Himalaya and the Alps are millions of years old, NOT thousands.

But the time scale for humans living in the Middle East and having spoken languages and religious beliefs is on the order of several tens of thousands of years. In other words, there were no humans alive before the mountains of Turkey had already reached over 10,00 feet high. It would take a massive number of slip faults to raise a single mountain - never mind an entire mountain range - 10,000 feet high in the last 20K years.

And if such a geological oddity did occur, we would have evidence of it happening, since it is such a relatively recent event. Among other things, there would not be much soil on the mountains and in the valleys between them since there would not be enough time for erosion to wear down the mountains.

So, no, there was no sudden uplifting of massive mountains after the mythical flood happened. The Noah myth means what is says: rain raised the oceans until the mountains were covered. Where that water came from and where it went to is never explained.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

The fact that there was no glacial ice in the mid-east in the 12,000 year range is fairly irrelevant. Any that happens in the North polar regions affects every region south of the ice line. Melting ice from the glaciers is the source of many flood legends. Where did you think all that water came from? Rain? Please. its only part of story. You and the creationist both miss the point about the where the water came from.
Did the melting ice 12,000 year ago cover 10,000+ foot mountains? No, of course not. So glaciers have nothing to do with the Noah fable.

I wrote that the black sea region might've had a double whammy. I mis-wrote, a triple whammy. I forgot about the rain. Here's what I think happens and its based on 2 theories put forward by 2 geologists.

It starts with the Glacial ice melting, these things are 3-4 miles high and covered much of Europe, and I think half of the Russian landmass. the outer Glacial ice mass can act as a temporary dam if the huge lake of water was melting in the interior. At some point the ice dam will break. My guess is that the European glacial ice melted and flooded europe and eventually flooded the Mediterranean sea causing its sea level to rise enough to over flow the black sea region. there probably was a thunderstorm that hit the area at the same time, probably lasting 1 - 2 weeks off an on.. and then you have flood waters from the melting ice from the Russian glacier making its way south towards the mid-east region. Water will go where it wants to go -- path of least resistance.

Actually it will only go downhill.

this is assuming the translation of the bible/torah was accurate which probably wasn't; so some words got lost in translation which was Bojulay's point.

And you're assuming a "literal" interpretation of this bible which was not Bojulay's point, nor was it mine either.

It may not be your point, but WE1911 and Bojulay have a history of disputing science in favor of the Bible AS IF the Bible was literal truth. So the ridiculousness of the Bible stories should be pointed out to them any time they step out of their depth and start telling the rest of us about all the problems of evolution.

The bible has certain linguistic problems in that it is filled with embellishments and exaggerations that were told orally by memory over time before it was written down.

One needs an open mind, not a closed mind, to see this as a history book.

As a history book of the Jewish people, some locations mentioned in the bible/torah have been confirmed as fact due to the discovery of a number of ruins found with Hebrew inscriptions. so, the story told in this case probably did happen in-spite of it being filled with exaggerations and embellishments.

I'm not disputing that Hebrews existed or that the Bible is related to their history. But Hebrew inscriptions on a temple wall of a stone tablet does not give any credibility to stories of floods inundating the earth 30,000 feet deep or men being swallowed by whales for days and then spit out or the earth being created in under a week.

And lots of primitive tribes had oral "histories" that were handed down for many generations before they were finally written down. But we treat those oral stories of folklore, not as truth.

No one gives any serious consideration to American Indian myths about the earth (the land) riding on the back of a giant sea turtle through the oceans. Why do some people give any more credence to the more outlandish portions of the Bible?

[theboss21422]

I think we should just admit religion has a place in our world just as science does. It as kept us civilized to a great degree. Knowing that there's more to us than a freak accident is comforting to the masses of our earth. They both just give us a platform to explain wat we don't understand. Throwing out these stats is ridiculous, no one as the handbook of our creation, its all speculation. The bible was written by great men with great faith of their beliefs to explain our existence and science is just our modern counterpart. Just use the beliefs and "scientific facts" as a guideline of how to live peacefully and fairly. Then when/if it does come to an end, there will be no regret on either side of this debate.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by theboss21422

I think we should just admit religion has a place in our world just as science does. It as kept us civilized to a great degree. Knowing that there's more to us than a freak accident is comforting to the masses of our earth. They both just give us a platform to explain wat we don't understand. Throwing out these stats is ridiculous, no one as the handbook of our creation, its all speculation. The bible was written by great men with great faith of their beliefs to explain our existence and science is just our modern counterpart. Just use the beliefs and "scientific facts" as a guideline of how to live peacefully and fairly. Then when/if it does come to an end, there will be no regret on either side of this debate.

Best post on this topic- the problem with Ex-Nyer is he quotes his info as if he were there or that it's 100 percent factual- he apparently doesn't know the definition of theory.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Best post on this topic- the problem with Ex-Nyer is he quotes his info as if he were there or that it's 100 percent factual- he apparently doesn't know the definition of theory.

Actually, you don't know the definition. But you can start to learn herer:

http://www.livescience.com/21491-wha...of-theory.html

The text, in case it gets deleted:
---------------------------------------
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
---------------------------------------------
You apparently only understand the "non-scientific" use of the word theory.

And you keep thinking that religious beliefs qualify as "theories" that are alternatives to REAL scientific theories. They aren't and they never can be.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No. That's NOT a perfect example. That is a shitty example.

The ancient people who wrote the Bible were not describing a never-before seen event or thing (like a 747) for which they did not have words. Rather they were describing things they were VERY familiar with and that they had words for.

The ancient Hebrews knew what "rain" was. They knew what "40 days" was. They know what boats were - even really big ones, like the ark. They knew what "two of every every animal" meant and they knew what a cubit was. They were not incomprehensible phenomena to them.

So when they wrote that it rained for 40 days and nights, they meant that over a duration of 40 consecutive 24 hour periods, it rained non-stop. There a no translation issues there.

Again this is untrue and hate to beat a dead horse- it's obvious that a lot of the authors from the Bible and basically most ancient writings talked about things that they had to describe in the best way they could- here's a prime example: Angels are mentioned in the Bible various time- ask anyone to describe an Angel and you will get a description of a human with large bird wings- no where in the bible does any author describe an Angel as a human with bird wings- the idea of angels having bird wings was ancient man's way of stating they had the ability of flight.
In fact "Angels" are perhaps the most misinterpreted beings in the Bible. The word Angel basically mean "messenger" it has wrongly mistaken to mean a "good" or "well behaved" person. The Bible mentions many cased where Angels come and deliver messages- well if any believer had any common sense they would know that the only way an "angel" could possibly deliver a "message" is teleportation/time travel/ or in space craft- as crazy as this may sounds replace Angel in the Bible with "Alien" and it makes sense. Are not "angels" by definition "Aliens" beings that are not of this world? In the book of Isiah where it states :"Elijah was carried away in a "chariot of fire" - what else could that have been? Ever read the book of Ezekial - many references to what he called the "Guardians of the Sky".
Look at many Egyptian writings and drawings- literally hundreds of pictures of figures they tried to describe by using other animations.
Obviously Ex-Nyer is totally unaware of the Book of Daniel and Book of Revelations- if the respective prophets are foretelling events in the future with images that were not yet present during that time- would they not use objects they are familiar with to describe the objects from a different time period- ditto to Nostradamus writing.

[bojulay]

Scientism is the religion of the Atheist, born out of the Logical Positivism movement.

Man was created by God to be a being that worships. Scientism has merely replaced
the worship of God with the worship of science.

In it's most rigid forms scientism can be very fundamentalist and dogmatic.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Scientism is the religion of the Atheist, born out of the Logical Positivism movement.

Man was created by God to be a being that worships. Scientism has merely replaced
the worship of God with the worship of science.

In it's most rigid forms scientism can be very fundamentalist and dogmatic.

seriously?