Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The flood was extra-ordinary: profuse rain pouring down, fountains sprung from the ground: this tremendous amounts of water came simultaneously and all the area was covered by large amounts of water that covered the mountains in the area: it was decreed that people should be drowned and Noah and the believers with him were saved in the ark.
Till now the effects of water waves are impressed on the hills and moutains in the region of Ain Siphney city in the north of Iraq.
The people of Noah had no time to escape: even his grandson Canaan was drowned; he was deceived by the disbelievers: he loved one of their girls and they promised to give him that girl in marriage, in case he did not go with Noah in the ark.
Moreover, there has been found many layers of mud precipations covering many cities in the plane of Mesopotamia.
An English excavator found a layer of mud precipitation covering some ancient cities; then he dug more to find under that city another mud layer covering other still more ancient cities.
You surprised me here, eanassir. This may explain a lot of localized events, and I'll be looking into it. Thanks! Sure beats some impossible Ak-floating global inundatio, as Mystic so correctly notes below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
You are writing about pre-flood anomalies. I am concerned with post- flood anomalies.
No. You have claimed that all the sediment layers happened at once. Nope: there's no common global sediment layer mixed with a mass of simultaneously deposited vegetative and animal dead, as such an inundation would have obviously produced.
Finally, if you had any understanding of population dynamics and even a casual arm-chair student's understanding of same, you'd know that a mere two (or even ten...) of any organism, except perhaps a particularly virulent bacterium, cannot possibly be successful at total repopulation of a species.
Why do you suppose that we biologists are so concerned when the world population of cheetahs, or tigers, or Rhinos, drops below, say, 1000 or even 3000 total? If they get down to TWO, as you so very simplistically believe, then they are, for all intents and purposes, incapable of repopulation and doomed to extinction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...N-reveals.html (fewer than 10,000 cheetahs remain. And you thought TWO was enough? Again... your spectacular lack of any credible knowledge on any of these species, let alone biology and genetics in general, is both tangilbe and blatantly absent. You must be so very proud, huh?
BTW: "Danger of extinction by low population numbers" means...
That they will absolutely all be gone in a short time, through disease, predation, old age, and so on. These things will take their toll.
Not to mention that we have how many identified species on this planet, known, documented and counted, and also certainly existing a mere 2500 years ago?
I'll tell you. In excess of 35M have been identified so far, with at least 100+ being added each month now! This we have a reasonable and even conservative estimate of a probable total of ≈ 100M.
Now...thats a lot for even only your fantasized two of each on Noah's now sinking Ark! But even being biologically ignorant, reasonably, biological facts require at least 100, minimum, if not 1000, of each mammal species type alone, not to mention all the other types (amphibians, lizards, all the plants and fresh-water and salt-water fishes, marine mammals who could not tolerate the huge and long-term salinity changes, and so on. All killed off, never to return!)
Your idea is so chock-full of vast impossibilities, that Mystic's timely and valuable comment below certainly applies, since you are, by proof of your comments and ideas herein, unreasonable and uneducated on this topic, and yet you try to come off as an expert.
But you are certainly not alone in The IDTr's Club:....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
I disagree, the cultures accounts were all specific and exact on the same subject ; that being a flood. 35 different cultures. It is generally conceded by Ethnologist that when races of people hold to a common, strongly specfic developed belief and story, there must have been some historical event ( or incident), as the basics of that universal account.
And personally, in my view, thats just common sense. Its not like 35 people in a room passing a story from one to the other, and the story changes; were talking 35 totally different cultures with the same subject data.
Now, some of these accounts slightly differ in detail, and some of the accounts of this great deluge appear weird, I admit that; even distorted, yet I see at least 4 biblical truths in all of them;
1. a god was offended by mans wickedness
2. there was an earth covering flood
3. there was an ark or boat that saved a man and his family
4. and there was a new beginning.
These are definte proofs in my view of discernment of human history. Thats why I say its academic.
Too bad these various mythological stories all occur at vastly different times, and with many more convenient gods conjured up, huh? Plus, I checked with your earlier post and rebuked all of your so-called flood myths as not being related or verified. Remember? Or are you just going to ignore all that free work I did for you? I guess so....
But time to get back to our local self-proclaimed biological expert...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The different nationalities of mankind, blacks, yellows, whites, browns etc. all came from the four families that exited the ark. The monkeys did not spawn humans. The monkees spawned different types of monkees.
Psssttt! The "monkees" were a British Rock group. Their leader just died two days ago. (Davey Jones). You must be thinking of "monkeys", huh? PS: just four individual humans, or anything else for that matter, could not possibly successfully repopulate the earth to 7 B people (with at least 50B having died along the way...) in only 2500 years, along with all the bio-genetics diversity we can map..
So... <thimk thimk thimk>... That would have required each of the two Ark mothers to have produced about 1000 babies per year for a least 25 years, with each of their daughters doing the same without interruption. Oh, and with absolutely no diseases, deaths or genetic defects, and with these mothers having their first kids at about age 5, until they were about 95.
Yup. That'd be just how it happened, for sure! I mean heck; if PsLDr (Pseudo & Liar-Doctor) Kent Hovind says it, why... it MUST be so, huh?
Despite all your relentless errors and mis-information, Eusebius, you sure are quite the expert on literally everything biological, it's pretty obvious now... I, having mis-understood all my various biological studies, should realize your vast expertise and just respectfully step aside, huh? OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Any mind that seriously entertains the Biblical account of Noah as literal cannot be reasoned with. There is no more proof of unreasoning credulity than that, Arequipa. It is a whole other thing. Reason plays no part in it.
I agree! I am tired of endlessly trying to educate the hopelessly intransigent and frantically stubborn, Mystic, so I'm gonna take your heartfelt advice and leave the asylum inmates alone now.
They'll go to their own particular chosen hell of endless innanities and mis-information, but they'll at least be happy in that.
Too bad these various mythological stories all occur at vastly different times, and with many more convenient gods conjured up, huh? Plus, I checked with your earlier post and rebuked most of you so-called flood myths as not being related. Remember? Or are you just going to ignore all that free work I did for you? I guess so....
.
Well the " Tower of Babel" is another biblical account that men consider a myth. But even it was proof of the flood. After Noah and his sons " Replenished the earth", ( Gen. 9-10) the whole earth was of one language and one speech, ( Gen. 11:1). Post-flood men, failing to give God rightful place and fearing they might be scattered and lose whatever name they might have or make for themselves, said to one another" Let us make brick and burn them thoroughly. Let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad."
They did this, reacted in this manner, because of their knowledge of the flood.
So how did Noah deal with 220 lb of urine split on the ground every day? And how did he deal with feeding the elephants 600 Ib of food and shoveling up 300 lb of poop every day?
One piece of drivel I read saying the flood was possible, written by some clown named 'Woodmanthrope' or some such name, claimed that Noah trained the animals to crap into buckets which Noah and his merry band of matelots could empty over the side (he didn't explain how they managed to get outside to do that mind you). I guess that makes old Noah the greatest animal trainer of all time!!
Who told you that monkeys spawned humans? Certainly not anyone who knows anything about evolution...Monkey's and apes (you are an ape, by the way) share a common ancestor...
This is the first time I have heard that there were four families on the ark, but nevertheless the minor differences between what you call human races are a product of evolution.
Yes there were 4 families on the ark. Noah and his wife. His sons Ham, Shem, Japeth and their wives.
Hence the terms Semetic, Hamitic, Japhetic when referring to certain regions. It's no coincidence you know.
And the races are not a product of "evolution". Just let a white and black person mate and you can get all the in between races in a relatively short period of time (that is not billions or millions of years). As a matter of fact just go to sub Saharan Africa, you will see great diversity in skin color (and it didn't take billions of year to do it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Onions
How about that! Thousands of cultures in the world, present and past, and at least 35 have flood stories. Amazing!
You know, it's enough to make you think that most civilizations arose around water, like on seashores, large lakes, or major rivers -- all of which occasionally experience devastating floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc...
35 different cultures that didn't drown in the global flood that killed all but 8 human beings. Utterly amazing, that they took the time to document a global flood (not sure how they knew it was global) while their fields and homes were being swept away in the flood water.
It's been thousands of years since the deluge. The account of this global flood has been passed down throughout the generations. Why is it unfathomable to think that the original account could have changed throughout the generations for whatever reasons (that are not pertinent to this topic)? It's kind of like the game where everyone sits in a circle and they pass around the original secret/story. It always varies from the original by the time gets back to the sender. Now add billions of people and thousands of years to that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I never thought of that, but it is a good point...By pointing out all the cultures that recorded a flood, they are proving that it wasn't a global flood...There would be nobody to record these if it were global....Hung by their own petards....That IS hilarious!
How does it do that? I wasn't aware that the cultures were actually participants of the great deluge. It is my understanding that they speak of their ancestors and of past accounts in these stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
You are right, trees do not grow for millions of years through sediment. First they become fossilized, then the sediment settles around them for millions of years.
Do you understand the process of fossilization? The process of fossilization involves the dissolving and replacement of the original materials in the object (tree) with minerals. This process results in a heavy, rock-like copy of the original object.
You really should try and learn at least a bit about how things work in the real world, that way you avoid looking foolish.
Correct me if I'm wrong but an organism cannot be fossilized before sediment settles around it from millions of years. The organism would decompose under those conditions. For these fossils to form the sediment (that supposedly takes millions of year to lay down) has to cover that organism immediately. But it takes millions of years for sediment layers to cover the organism sufficiently. It seems like a catch 22 to me.
Yes there were 4 families on the ark. Noah and his wife. His sons Ham, Shem, Japeth and their wives.
Hence the terms Semetic, Hamitic, Japhetic when referring to certain regions. It's no coincidence you know.
And the races are not a product of "evolution". Just let a white and black person mate and you can get all the in between races in a relatively short period of time (that is not billions or millions of years). As a matter of fact just go to sub Saharan Africa, you will see great diversity in skin color (and it didn't take billions of year to do it).
It's been thousands of years since the deluge. The account of this global flood has been passed down throughout the generations. Why is it unfathomable to think that the original account could have changed throughout the generations for whatever reasons (that are not pertinent to this topic)? It's kind of like the game where everyone sits in a circle and they pass around the original secret/story. It always varies from the original by the time gets back to the sender. Now add billions of people and thousands of years to that...
How does it do that? I wasn't aware that the cultures were actually participants of the great deluge. It is my understanding that they speak of their ancestors and of past accounts in these stories.
Correct me if I'm wrong but an organism cannot be fossilized before sediment settles around it from millions of years. The organism would decompose under those conditions. For these fossils to form the sediment (that supposedly takes millions of year to lay down) has to cover that organism immediately. But it takes millions of years for sediment layers to cover the organism sufficiently. It seems like a catch 22 to me.
Correct me if I'm wrong but an organism cannot be fossilized before sediment settles around it from millions of years. The organism would decompose under those conditions. For these fossils to form the sediment (that supposedly takes millions of year to lay down) has to cover that organism immediately. But it takes millions of years for sediment layers to cover the organism sufficiently. It seems like a catch 22 to me.
It was the late C34 who pointed out that wood fossilization or petrification (he was trying to explain why the Ark remains appear to be stone) can happen remarkably quickly. In fact fossilisation can take place quite quickly on the geological scale. I had for some time the misconception that rocks are old because they have fossils in them. In fact the fossils are old because they are in old rocks and of course, we have fossil bones of animals which are still organic when found frozen in Siberia or in the la Brea tar pits.
The process can happen when the surrounding sediment is not yet rock since what is needed is minerals to leach into the space left by the rotted object. In the case of the wood, petrification could be of the actual stump which wouldn't even need to rot away. It could become impregnated with minerals. Subsequently, they could stand as a fossil forest which is something we see today and separate layers could build up around them giving the impression that they have grown up through geological strata, which is nonsense, as the Creationists point out.
I suppose the flood scenario has water rising above the forests and burying them in silt. But, as I observed, this ought to result in one deep layer rather than several strata which indicates successive buryings over geological time.
While Flood - believers could probably explain that away, it leaves flood v Deep time both with explanations and it is really the other 'evidence' that lets the Flood down.
I noted a reference to an archeologist finding a flood level and a mention of Mesopotamia.
Leonard Woolley excavated UR and found a deep layer of silt (Just the one deep layer ) which was loudly claimed as the 'Flood'. In fact I recall reading that it turned out that this level was strictly local to Ur and did not extend even to other Sumerian cities.
Once again, I am genuinely astounded that a species in the habit of of living in areas -- seashores, lakeshores, along rivers, all places subject to periodic floods, deluges, hurricanes, etc. -- occasionally experience ... well, floods, deluges, hurricanes, etc. ... that enter into legend.
Once again, I am genuinely astounded that a species in the habit of of living in areas -- seashores, lakeshores, along rivers, all places subject to periodic floods, deluges, hurricanes, etc. -- occasionally experience ... well, floods, deluges, hurricanes, etc. ... that enter into legend.
It's a miracle!
Hmm, I wonder if the Japanese ever stated that the entire world flooded when that tsunami last flooded them? Nope!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) which was loudly claimed as the 'Flood'. In fact I recall reading that it turned out that this level was strictly local to Ur and did not extend even to other Sumerian cities.
