View Full Version : How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark?


Pages : [1] 2 3

NDS
03-19-07, 11:04 PM
Although more than a million animal species have been described, the actual number may be closer to 10 million (according to http://texasnature.blogspot.com/2003/10/how-many-animal-species-exist.html)

Institution entomologist Terry Erwin estimates there may be 30 million species of tropical insects alone.

10 million species of animals. First of all, how did Noah find and collect every species of animal? He would have had to literally travel all over the world.

Secondly, if he even found all these species of animals, how did he fit a male and female of each animal into the ark?

If there are 10 million species of animals, he would have had to fit 20 million animals in the ark. Think about that: 20,000,000 animals. However, "Vertebrates, the mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, those species with a backbone, number only about 44,000 species in total." Even so, that's still 88,000 big vertebrates on one boat. 88 thousand.

The ark would have to have been at least the size of Texas, right?

skywalker
03-19-07, 11:16 PM
Although more than a million animal species have been described, the actual number may be closer to 10 million (according to http://texasnature.blogspot.com/2003/10/how-many-animal-species-exist.html)

Institution entomologist Terry Erwin estimates there may be 30 million species of tropical insects alone.

10 million species of animals. First of all, how did Noah find and collect every species of animal? He would have had to literally travel all over the world.

Secondly, if he even found all these species of animals, how did he fit a male and female of each animal into the ark?

If there are 10 million species of animals, he would have had to fit 20 million animals in the ark. Think about that: 20,000,000 animals. However, "Vertebrates, the mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, those species with a backbone, number only about 44,000 species in total." Even so, that's still 88,000 big vertebrates on one boat. 88 thousand.

The ark would have to have been at least the size of Texas, right?

In three steps.

1- Open the Ark doors.

2- Pushed the animals in.

3- Closed the ark doors.

timmbuktwo
03-19-07, 11:24 PM
Remember, he didn't really have to "sail his ark" , he just had to wait for the land to dry.

wsionynw
03-20-07, 04:52 AM
It didn't happen, it's a myth.

redarmy11
03-20-07, 04:57 AM
The mythical ark was ABSOLUTELY HUGE - YOU IDIOT!!!

wsionynw
03-20-07, 05:29 AM
The mythical ark was ABSOLUTELY HUGE - YOU IDIOT!!!

You're right, I'm a fool. Ricky Gervais put it best -
God: Build an ark!
Noah: What's an ark?
God: It's a boat type thing!
Noah: Right, I'm not that experienced at building boats...
God: Don't worry about it, just build it, I'll make sure it's alright!
Noah:Ok...erm...
God: Get two of each animal!
Noah: I should be writing this down...
God: Don't worry about the fish, they can swim!
Noah: Ok...
God: Or the birds, they can fly, but get the flightless birds, they'll drown! But not the penguins, they're flightless but they can swim.....


:rolleyes:

Nickelodeon
03-20-07, 05:37 AM
Wouldnt they also have to provide food for them all? What did they do for 40 days, I mean they couldnt eat each other - that wouldnt be nice. Unless God suspended their need for food. In which case, why bother? Just give all the animals he wanted to save the ability to breath underwater.....

Roman
03-20-07, 05:38 AM
Why was an ark even necessary?

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 07:07 AM
The dinosaurs and mammoths must have been pissed when they missed their ride on Gilamish`s boat.

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 07:08 AM
It didn't happen, it's a myth.

It kinda is. From what I understand its a rehash of the story of a King called Gillamish or something like that. One day they had a bad flood, so he loaded all his wealth onto a boat and sailed somewhere else.

nietzschefan
03-20-07, 07:39 AM
Yes it's very similar to the flood part of the epic of Gilgamesh. Ea,(resurrected in Tolkien works) the god whom had a part in the making of humans, gave Gilgamesh hints on how to survive the flood, without breaking his oath to other gods. Gil was instructed also to build a boat and put "all living things in it". A tall order indeed.

Written around 2000-1900 BC, it predates old testament books(all of them). Gilgamesh was king of Uruk in Babylonia ~2700BC. I wonder what date most bible scholar's pin the "great flood"? I still think it was at best a local Mediterranean/floodplain, flood.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 07:42 AM
Only about 20,000 syngameons of animals need have been on the Ark.

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 07:52 AM
Only about 20,000 syngameons of animals need have been on the Ark.

so from the 60 million current known species Noah needed only 20k of them?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 07:58 AM
Roughly.

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 08:06 AM
Do you know how many "larger than a sheep" animals there are in Africa? How many different species?

NDS
03-20-07, 08:06 AM
Roughly.

True. Because Noah knew about evolution and that those animals he brought would simply evolve, right?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 08:08 AM
He knew they would evolve, but not in a Darwinian sense, merely natural selection within the gene pools of the respective syngameons.

Sarkus
03-20-07, 08:09 AM
Only about 20,000 syngameons of animals need have been on the Ark.While this is possibly true - it would then require there to be enough time between the flood and now to account for ALL the vast array of species that currently exist and have also been made extinct - through evolution.

So - how long ago was the flood supposed to have been?

Or - if you don't hold with evolution - how do you explain the vast array of species within the syngameons?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 08:11 AM
The vast array of so-called species are just manifestations of isolated breeding groups of the respective syngameons in disparate environments.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 08:36 AM
"Breeding groups of syngameons" is a oxymoron. Syngameons are infertile. The mule for instance. You'll either have to supply citations to literature that scientifically supports what your saying or accept that you're full of it.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 08:44 AM
Groups of breeders from each syngameon into isolated and disparate environments is what I was taking about, I thought obviously, many different "species" of cats can cross-breed, they are of the same syngameon, how dense can you get Skin?

VitalOne
03-20-07, 08:47 AM
The story of Noah's ark was probably a myth inspired by an actual event...a man who survived a great flood...

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 08:48 AM
Eight people, whose offspring track the people groups of the ancient world.

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 09:04 AM
The story of Noah's ark was probably a myth inspired by an actual event...a man who survived a great flood...

As I mentioned earlier its a rehash of the legend of Gilamish ( I may be spelling Gilamish wrong)

VitalOne
03-20-07, 09:09 AM
As I mentioned earlier its a rehash of the legend of Gilamish ( I may be spelling Gilamish wrong)
I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh but I really don't see that much similarity in the stories besides there being a flood.....

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 09:09 AM
A poor rendering of the true story.

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 09:11 AM
I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh but I really don't see that much similarity in the stories besides there being a flood.....

Well, that's where the story started. It might have been embellished upon in true Christian tradition.

VitalOne
03-20-07, 09:14 AM
Well, that's where the story started. It might have been embellished upon in true Christian tradition.
But lots of cultures around the world have flood myths...that indicates that there probably was some huge flood a long time ago.....

There's almost nothing similar in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark besides there being a flood....

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 09:14 AM
Noah's account reads like a ship's log.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 09:20 AM
Groups of breeders from each syngameon into isolated and disparate environments is what I was taking about, I thought obviously, many different "species" of cats can cross-breed, they are of the same syngameon, how dense can you get Skin?


Rather than resort to childish insults, accusing other of density, perhaps it would serve your purpose better to be be more clear and concise, providing, at least at some point, clarifications for your psueduoscientific drivel. Until you co-opted the term, quite ineffectively and unrealistically I might add, the only other mention of "syngameon" that I've recalled was with regard to infertile species like mules. A quick look at a dictionary reveals that the definition is more broad, but when using non-standard technical terms to mixed audiences, the proper etiquette for the writer is to provide a definition as well as a reason why the term is relevant.

So, to answer your question, I can be quite dense. Particularly in the company of the undereducated and the ignorant.

Having made my point, I challenge you now to provide the scientific data to support your wild and fantastical claims. If you are unable to do so, then obviously they aren't worth the pixels they're written in.


Noah's account reads like a ship's log.

The "Noah account" reads like a stolen and plagiarized work of mythology. In places, the Noachian flood myth is a word-for-word copy of the much earlier Sumerian myth of Ziasudra/Utnapishtim retold in tablet 10 of Gilgamesh.

In other words, the Noachian flood story is a proven literary fraud. One that, interestingly enough, many deluded people take as a literal truth. Perhaps, one day, there will be those that accept a Tom Clancy novel to be the literal truth of a new Savior named Jack Ryan.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 09:22 AM
Tee hee.

Darwinism is such a whopper, I can't believe people like you are that gullible Skin.

SnakeLord
03-20-07, 09:30 AM
I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh but I really don't see that much similarity in the stories besides there being a flood.....

Then clearly you haven't read it.


A poor rendering of the true story.

The original of a future "bastardization", (the Noah version). You simply cannot argue it.


There's almost nothing similar in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark besides there being a flood....

Wrong. Try reading it again, this time with your eyes open.


Darwinism is such a whopper

Point out any specific grievances and we can take a look at them.

VitalOne
03-20-07, 09:36 AM
Then clearly you haven't read it.



The original of a future "bastardization", (the Noah version). You simply cannot argue it.



Wrong. Try reading it again, this time with your eyes open.



Point out any specific grievances and we can take a look at them.

All of the supposed similarities are real vague stupid things not actual similarities...like Noah was a special man and Gilgamesh was also a special man...woah what a similarity...

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 09:38 AM
Let's examine the "vagueness" of your claim then: The Noachian flood myth can be dismissed as a myth with no factual basis based solely on its comparison and contrast to the older stories and myths about floods that existed long before among the people residing in the flood plain of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The Gilgamesh epic is demonstrably the literary progenitor of the Noachian myth. I'll include passages from both Genesis and Gilgamesh here in a line-numbered format to compare:


At the end of forty days
Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and released a raven,
Which flew back and forth as it waited for the waters to dry up on the earth
Then he released a dove to see whether the waters were receding from the earth
But the dove, finding nowhere to perch, returned to the ark, for there was water over the whole surface of the earth. Putting his hand out, he took hold of it and brought it back into the ark with him.
After waiting seven more days, he again released the dove from the ark.
In the evening the dove came back to him and there in his beak was a freshly-picked olive leaf! So Noah realized that the waters were receding from the earth.
After waiting seven more days, he released the dove and now it returned no more.
--Genesis 8:6-12

Now Gilgamesh:

When the seventh day arrived,
I sent forth and set free a dove.
The dove went forth but came back since no resting place was visible, she turned around.
Then I set forth a swallow
The swallow went forth but came back, since no resting place for it was visible, she turned around.
.
.
I then set free a raven. The raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished, he eats, circles, caws, and turns not around.
--Gligamesh XI, 145-54

In the Gilgamesh passage, I left two blank lines to maintain the correlation between the two and show the parallels. The Genesis passage shows clear embellishments (again, a common literary device of the period) I took the Gilgamesh passage from Pritchard (1955, pp 94-95).

But we must also consider that Gilgamesh itself is not original with its flood story. A Sumerian myth was recorded in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. on a cuneiform tablet that described the destruction of the "seed of mankind" by the gods. This story is referred to as The Deluge and describes how Ziusudra, a particularly pious man, attentive to divine revelations, was chosen by the gods to survive the flood and who built a "huge boat."

The flood of The Deluge sweeps the land for 7 days and 7 nights until Utu, the Sun god, appears, at which point Ziusudra sacrifices an ox and is rewarded for his obedience with eternal life. "Ziusudra," by the way, means "life of long days."

The Deluge is then incorporated into the Akkadian Atrahasis epic, some details are added (i.e. the survivor's family is among the boat's passengers) and this is later incorporated into the Gilgamesh epic, which is a story that spread throughout the Near East.

Until recently, Biblical readers of Gen. 8:6-12 only had the Biblical account of the flood to go by until archaeological and linguistic recovery of the ancient languages occurred. It's now obvious that the Genesis author was drawing on an older oral tradition for the details of the flood and that it wasn't divinely influenced at all.

Key Elements

Deciding to send a flood to wipe out life on earth
Selecting a worthy man to survive
Building a boat
Riding out the storm on the boat
Offering a sacrifice on dry land at the end.


** The details of the birds are absent from The Deluge and Antrahasis epics, making Gilgamesh the biblical source.

The big failing of the religious is that they are believers and thus refuse to have an objective point of view. The advantage of the non-believer or the liberal-believer, is that they can look at the biblical stories and realize that these are myths created by an ancient set of cultures that borrowed heavily from existing stories and motifs to make points about morality and offer explanations. Most religious people aren't threatened by the notion that biblical stories are mythological and allegorical, but fundementalists like IAC and others in this forum fear this realization since they think it threatens to bring down the house of cards they superstitiously live in.

The irony is that it will probably be the fundamentalists that will finally cause most religious people to turn away from religious superstition as they continue to assert fiction and superstition trump the science that keeps providing consistent answers and explanation. The double irony is that the religious are anti-science at nearly every turn, but don't mind reaping the benefits science provides with new technologies from indoor plumbing to computers to refined petroleum.

Sarkus
03-20-07, 09:39 AM
The vast array of so-called species are just manifestations of isolated breeding groups of the respective syngameons in disparate environments.1. Please indicate when the supposed flood occurred. Are we talking 6,000 BC? 10,000 BC? 100,000 BC?

2. Please provide some evidence as to the timescale it would take for e.g. the Siamese variety of cat to become fully genetically manifest from the original pair of non-Siamese cats. Is it 1,000 years? 2,000? 10,000?

VitalOne
03-20-07, 09:41 AM
Let's examine the "vagueness" of your claim then:

Setting a dove free was a very common thing that people use to do in ancient times....another VAGUE similarity....

Building a boat during a flood woaaaaaaaah now thats a similarity..but wait don't people ALWAYS build boats during floods?

A catastrophe wiping out life on earth? Since when was a catastrophe something that didn't wipe out life on Earth?

Keep trying...

Sarkus
03-20-07, 09:43 AM
Setting a dove free was a very common thing that people use to do in ancient times....another VAGUE similarity....LOL!

"What are you going to do today, Honey?"

"Dunno, luv. Thought I'd just relax in front of the window. Maybe set a dove free."

"But didn't you do that yesterday?"

"Yeah, I did. But we've got so many more trapped upstairs. No point in setting them all free at once!"

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 09:46 AM
Thanks for that post Skinwalker, it was very interesting. I knew the link to Gilgamesh, I did not know about the earlier links.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 09:53 AM
Tee hee.

Darwinism is such a whopper, I can't believe people like you are that gullible Skin.

I merged these two posts together, but for others reading this, the infraction was for the meaningless content of the first post. Let this serve as a public warning to all that this is a discussion forum. While occasional off-topic banter and humor is fine, continued and habitual posts of this nature are complete and utter spam. Either discuss or don't discuss.

To address IAC's comment about "Darwinism," I'll agree with him. It is a whopper, if by "whopper" he means a large topic to chew on. This is why the undereducated and the credulous have such difficulty with it. They approach the topic from the fallacious perspective of personal incredulity and argue from ignorance. Unfortunately, most haven't the first clue about evolution and biology, chemistry, geology, and physics in general. Yet the rant away using "scientific" sounding terms, ironically appealing to authority, in their desire to hold together their own house of cards called religion.

Their erroneous belief is that anything but a literal interpretation of their mythology damages their cause and renders it invalid. I suppose, to some degree it does. But that isn't the problem of science (notice I said "science" not "evolution") since science is concerned only with an objective truth, regardless of religious mythology. If religious mythology is supported by scientific discovery, fine. If it isn't, this, too, is fine. In science, accepted truths are conditional, to be revised should new and demonstrable data be presented. Some truths are improved and enhanced. Others get completely scrapped with new paradigms built to offer better explanations.

Never has religion presented itself as such an institution and this is unfortunate. And, it is with much irony that is obviously lost completely on IAC, that he accuses me of being "gullible."

VitalOne
03-20-07, 09:58 AM
LOL!

"What are you going to do today, Honey?"

"Dunno, luv. Thought I'd just relax in front of the window. Maybe set a dove free."

"But didn't you do that yesterday?"

"Yeah, I did. But we've got so many more trapped upstairs. No point in setting them all free at once!"
Setting a dove free was a very common tradition and thing to do in ancient times....very very common....the dove is like a messenger of peace...even today the effect of it is still here...

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 10:01 AM
Keep trying...

There's no need. You've made some "confidence statements" that are unsupported by facts (the common things people in antiquity did; everyone built boats during floods (have you ever been in a flood?); etc.), but you haven't shown any of them to be factual.

I presented a line-for-line comparison using a method of literary critique that, had I used to compare works of Steinbeck and Fitzgerald, you wouldn't have objected. But because I pick on a particular mythology that you accept, without critical thought or inquiry, to be 100% accurate it's different.

There's no need for me to try any harder than that. Those with skills of reason and inquiry will see what I've written and consider it objectively. Those that have conclusion to which they've already arrived at will see only that which supports their conclusions. This is called delusion.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 10:03 AM
Setting a dove free was a very common tradition and thing to do in ancient times....very very common....the dove is like a messenger of peace...even today the effect of it is still here...

Maybe you're correct. I challenge you to either quantify that statement with a citation to a work of literature ca. 3000 BCE that mentions such behavior.

VitalOne
03-20-07, 10:04 AM
There's no need. You've made some "confidence statements" that are unsupported by facts (the common things people in antiquity did; everyone built boats during floods (have you ever been in a flood?); etc.), but you haven't shown any of them to be factual.

I presented a line-for-line comparison using a method of literary critique that, had I used to compare works of Steinbeck and Fitzgerald, you wouldn't have objected. But because I pick on a particular mythology that you accept, without critical thought or inquiry, to be 100% accurate it's different.

There's no need for me to try any harder than that. Those with skills of reason and inquiry will see what I've written and consider it objectively. Those that have conclusion to which they've already arrived at will see only that which supports their conclusions. This is called delusion.
Unsupported by facts? People always build boats during floods...there's nothing else to do but build a boat or ship....its just the logical thing to do...go look on the news when there's great floods in cities people ride on boats....

There's nothing really similar about the two stories....I mean if Gilgamesh had two of each animal on his boat or something then maybe but the rest is just people trying to find similarities in two different stories...

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 10:12 AM
Unsupported by facts? People always build boats during floods...there's nothing else to do but build a boat or ship....its just the logical thing to do...go look on the news when there's great floods in cities people ride on boats....

Have you ever built a boat, VO? I mean really... you are seriously suggesting that its a coincidence that a god picked a "worthy man" to save, give him the 411 on the upcoming flood, and instruct him to build a boat? This is common practice? I need not refute a single word you're saying, you're doing well all by yourself.


There's nothing really similar about the two stories....I mean if Gilgamesh had two of each animal on his boat or something then maybe but the rest is just people trying to find similarities in two different stories...

Like I said, the credulous who have conclusions to which they've already arrived at will not look critically or with reason to anything that doesn't overtly support their position. You don't see the similarity because of personal incredulity and argument from personal ignorance. Nor do I expect you to give a reasoned and critical response to anything I've posted.

The reason I post isn't to convince you, but rather to provide critical and reasoned information for those that haven't arrived at conclusions and are genuinely curious. Those are the types of people that Google terms like "Noah's Flood" and "Gilgamesh" and land here. Then they see a side-by-side comparison of a reasoned and critical versus a credulous and uncritical opinion.

Saquist
03-20-07, 10:15 AM
Some have told me that it was impossible that the animals could have fit in the Ark even as big as it was to include animals from all the Earth minus some obvious creatures.

However, one must consider the true nature of the Global Deluge. Is it possible that many animals didn't require the Ark perhaps there were other types of "Land" to exisst on. for those smaller easier to manage animals.

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 10:19 AM
Some have told me that it was impossible that the animals could have fit in the Ark even as big as it was to include animals from all the Earth minus some obvious creatures.

However, one must consider the true nature of the Global Deluge. Is it possible that many animals didn't require the Ark perhaps there were other types of "Land" to exisst on. for those smaller easier to manage animals.

Yeah, I read that in the Bible to! In the Book of Bull :D *thumbsuck*

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 10:26 AM
Some have told me that it was impossible that the animals could have fit in the Ark even as big as it was to include animals from all the Earth minus some obvious creatures.

However, one must consider the true nature of the Global Deluge. Is it possible that many animals didn't require the Ark perhaps there were other types of "Land" to exisst on. for those smaller easier to manage animals.

And its also possible that the noachian flood myth was a story that was borrowed from the Sumerians, modified and embellished to fit their needs to provide explanations to religious followers just as all cultures have oral and written traditions that do the same.

It is utterly amazing to watch the religiously deluded carry on about how their mythology is literal truth whilst all the while accepting the mythical origins of stories from the Maya, Navajo, Fulani, Druids, Celts, Egyptians, Akkadians, Mongols and the thousands of other extant and extinct cultures, each with its own unique set of myths of origin, creation, and explanation.

Utterly amazing. Such behavior gives the anthropologist in me an ethnographic hard-on.

Saquist
03-20-07, 10:54 AM
Actually it's not possible.
The bible is the most detail account of them all. The detail matches the others few match each other but all match the biblical account...
The bible has always be more detail and out of all the accounts its string of history is unequaled.

Forgive me..I believe I deprived you of your erection.

SnakeLord
03-20-07, 10:56 AM
All of the supposed similarities are real vague stupid things not actual similarities...

Sorry, what exactly is a vague 'stupid thing'?


Setting a dove free was a very common thing that people use to do in ancient times....another VAGUE similarity....

Setting a dove free was a very common tradition and thing to do in ancient times....very very common...

Kindly provide something to support this claim.


Unsupported by facts? People always build boats during floods...there's nothing else to do but build a boat or ship....its just the logical thing to do...

Building a boat would hardly be the logical thing for an inland dwelling person to do if he had no knowledge of a flood. If the entire planet was then flooded he'd have little time to make a boat. Usually by the time you see the wave coming, you're already under it.


There's nothing really similar about the two stories....I mean if Gilgamesh had two of each animal on his boat or something then maybe

O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build

There you go, that should satisfy your requirements.

Eventually the boat lodges on a mountain... Birds are then sent out to test for land but come back without finding any. Then another bird is sent out. Finally he sacrifices an animal to which:

The gods smelled the savor,
the gods smelled the sweet savor

The bible says:

'yahweh smelt the pleasing smell'.

There is a lot more to it than "stupid things", but you have a bias. You're simply unable to look at the matter objectively.

Saquist
03-20-07, 11:02 AM
Actualy there is actual of tradition of contempt and bias bred into the newest generation of children for the bible. This has been followed by lawlessness and an ascendinding disrespect toward authority which of course where the problem lies...

Medicine*Woman
03-20-07, 11:06 AM
*************
M*W: Okay, now for the astro-theological take on Noah's Ark... there were only a handful of animals that had to fit into the proverbial Ark (Arka; Argo). They were a ram, bull, two fish, lion, crab, scorpion and goatfish. But we LL know this is just myth. They really didn't have to "fit" into a boat/ They were sky beings as was the Ark.

www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/ard-asr.htm

www.ufrsd.net/staffwww/stefanl/myths/argonavis.htm

Let's start with these two. Anything more technical right now wouldn't mean anything. All bible stories came from ancient humans interpreting the skies. I should say ancient men. Had ancient women interpreted the skies, they would probably have more of a maternal theme.

SnakeLord
03-20-07, 11:06 AM
The bible is the most detail account of them all. The detail matches the others few match each other but all match the biblical account...
The bible has always be more detail and out of all the accounts its string of history is unequaled.


A) I don't really know how much you know about writing or like writing. I personally love it, can't get enough. I'll sit down and write a story from start to finish. This is called a first draft. I'll then go away, have a few drinks, wait a week and then come back to it. Upon reading it I end up making a second draft - which ammends the first draft. I add bits, change bits etc.

It doesn't ever work the other way around. You don't start off with a second draft and take bits away to end up with a first draft. No sir.

Let's say you want to do a rewrite of a story that was written 1,500 years ago. You can look at the various stories/legends etc and then write an account that incorporates parts from all of them while still retaining some form of originality, (your own interjections).

The simple fact of the matter - absolutely regardless to your bias, is that the Gilgamesh deluge account predates the biblical one by over a millennium. This, to all intents and purposes for this example, is the original, the first draft. If the event actually happened it would be the more accurate simply by being written closer to the actual events, and in either case would still be the first draft basis of latter accounts.

B) You mention it's "history". What exactly from the flood accounts can you show to be historically accurate?

Saquist
03-20-07, 11:17 AM
A: I'm sure you don't start off that way. You point is vague.

B: It is a historical Fact that the flood occured. The correlation with hundreds of alike stories around the earth make it a corelated event. Which is what is nescessary to make it apart of history?

SnakeLord
03-20-07, 11:27 AM
A: I'm sure you don't start off that way. You point is vague.

Sorry what exactly didn't you understand? I'll try and rephrase it.


B: It is a historical Fact that the flood occured

LOL! (Let it be said I absolutely hate writing in caps but that was so damn funny I couldn't avoid it). Anyway, according to who exactly?


The correlation with hundreds of alike stories around the earth make it a corelated event.

Guess you and vitalone need to come to an agreement. He fails to see any correlation in various flood stories whereas you see them all as intextricably linked. Of course needless to say it does tend to flood in many parts of the world - it's only normal you'd find different cultures with flood stories.

I would advise you for future reference to avoid using the word fact, unless you can support the claim with those 'facts'.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 11:33 AM
You make some excellent points Saquist, there are certainly hundreds of legends about the Deluge, and all the ancient Old World cultures had legends of the same event, like Fuhi of the Chinese legend, there is even a fresco of Fuhi's vessel, on the Deluge waters, with the dove flying away from the Ark, but of course, "that's all just coincidence."

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 11:34 AM
Read the stories Snake, they are hardly accounts of local floods.

Sarkus
03-20-07, 11:41 AM
A: I'm sure you don't start off that way. You point is vague.Two people see the same event and write stories A and B about it. Both contain similar things but differ in language and subtle content.

5 years later someone comes along to write about the same event. They see books A and B - and so use both books to write their account - story C.

Now A and B will only contain similar details for the largest things (the actual event happening etc). and will differ on the small detail (what they were doing at the time etc)

C uses all of A and B - so of course A will be included in C, as will B.

Because C was written later in time it can use all of the bits of A and B and combine them - thus being far closer to A or to B than A is to B.

If you can not understand this then please just accept that you're wrong and move along.




B: It is a historical Fact that the flood occured. The correlation with hundreds of alike stories around the earth make it a corelated event. Which is what is nescessary to make it apart of history?
I suggest that you do a course in (a) history, and (b) logical fallacies.

The entire world could say that all the animals went two by two into the ark - yet it wouldn't be true (partly 'cos clean animals went in to the ark in 7s - not 2s!).
The entire world could think that Alpha Centaurii is the closest star to Earth - but it wouldn't be true (our sun is!).

Furthermore - stories do NOT constitute sufficient evidence to make something fact - no matter how rife they are throughout culture.

If culture A wrote about a local flood in the year 10,000 BC, and culture B wrote about a local flood that occured in 8,000 BC - but the two stories were only found in writings from 3,000 BC it is quite possible that one could claim there was at one point in history a world-wide flood. Yet the local floods occurred 2,000 years apart.

You do need to support your claims.
In some way.
Any way.
Any way at all.
Just a bit.

VitalOne
03-20-07, 12:03 PM
Guess you and vitalone need to come to an agreement. He fails to see any correlation in various flood stories whereas you see them all as intextricably linked. Of course needless to say it does tend to flood in many parts of the world - it's only normal you'd find different cultures with flood stories.

I would advise you for future reference to avoid using the word fact, unless you can support the claim with those 'facts'.
I didn't say I didn't see any correlation, I just didn't see how they were based off each other. There probably was a great flood and many stories stemmed from that same great flood....it doesn't mean they copied off each other....

I would estimate that the great flood occured around 28,740 BCE...scientists estimate that there was a great flood around 30,000 BCE

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 12:07 PM
Actually it's not possible.
The bible is the most detail account of them all. The detail matches the others few match each other but all match the biblical account...
The bible has always be more detail and out of all the accounts its string of history is unequaled.

Forgive me..I believe I deprived you of your erection.

Your response is completely fallacious. It argues from personal incredulity and introduces a non sequitur. That you can't believe it to be possible doesn't negate the possibility that biblical mythology is adapted and borrowed, whilst being embellished and exaggerated, from much earlier written and oral traditions.

Moreover, your statement that the bible includes more detail is a non sequitur because it doesn't follow that the addition of embellished details and adaptive literary devices provides validity to the myth's veracity. It would seem that your perceived deprivation is naught.

But then, I've come to expect continued fallacy and lack of critical thought from the credulous and those that have already established conclusions to which they seek only data which is supportive.

In the end, perhaps I am deprived of an ethnographic hard-on since such intellectual and academic atrophy is depressing.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 12:12 PM
Skin, how do you know of any "addition of embellished details," and what supposed "adaptive literary devices" are you talking about?

VitalOne
03-20-07, 12:16 PM
Sorry, what exactly is a vague 'stupid thing'?

Like these:
- Gilgamesh was a special man and so was Noah
- There was boat in both stories
- There was a catastrophe in both stories
- There was a flood in both stories



Building a boat would hardly be the logical thing for an inland dwelling person to do if he had no knowledge of a flood. If the entire planet was then flooded he'd have little time to make a boat. Usually by the time you see the wave coming, you're already under it.

O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build

There you go, that should satisfy your requirements.

Eventually the boat lodges on a mountain... Birds are then sent out to test for land but come back without finding any. Then another bird is sent out. Finally he sacrifices an animal to which:

The gods smelled the savor,
the gods smelled the sweet savor

The bible says:

'yahweh smelt the pleasing smell'.

There is a lot more to it than "stupid things", but you have a bias. You're simply unable to look at the matter objectively.
Maybe you're right, maybe they are very similar now that I've re-examined it. However this does not mean that the stories were based off each other.

Take this Aztec legend:
Aztec- A man named Tapi lived a long time ago. Tapi was a very pious man. The creator told Tapi to build a boat that he would live in. He was told that he should take his wife, a pair of every animal that was alive into this boat. Naturally everyone thought he was crazy. Then the rain started and the flood came. The men and animals tried to climb the mountains but the mountains became flooded as well. Finally the rain ended. Tapi decided that the water had dried up when he let a dove loose that did not return.

Using your logic some how the Aztecs (even though there's no geographical connection) must have copied off the story from the Epic of Gilgamesh...

Sock puppet path
03-20-07, 12:18 PM
Unsupported by facts? People always build boats during floods...there's nothing else to do but build a boat or ship....its just the logical thing to do...go look on the news when there's great floods in cities people ride on boats.

If you don't even start building a boat (especially a HUGE FRIKKIN BOAT) well before a flood starts you're well and truly screwed. Look at the news indeed, so you believe that all those boats we saw floating around New Orleans weren't built until the flood started? :bravo:

SetiAlpha6
03-20-07, 12:20 PM
Hmmm…

Now, one of the first things the pure and virtuous Noah did after his famous voyage was to make some wine, get drunk, roll around naked, and curse his own grandchild, Canaan, for something his father did (See Genesis 9:21-27). His father, Ham, accidentally saw him naked during Noah’s little drunken stupor. So what else would one of the only “righteous” men on earth do but curse his own "righteous" son’s, son for life because of it?

What kind of a grandfather could do such a sick thing?

Medicine*Woman
03-20-07, 12:27 PM
*************
M*W: What was Noah's Ark?

www.homepage.mac.com/cosmicbyproduct/web-content/noahsark.html

VitalOne
03-20-07, 12:29 PM
This whole flood myth thing has become very interesting...in the beginning I had thought it was just a simple coincidence that he set a dove free at the end...but why do many different stories from different parts of the world that have no geographical connection have that dove, animals being on the boat, etc...in their flood myths?

Southwest Tanzania
Once upon a time the rivers began to flood. The god told two people to get into a ship. He told them to take lots of seed and to take lots of animals. The water of the flood eventually covered the mountains. Finally the flood stopped. Then one of the men, wanting to know if the water had dried up let a dove loose. The dove returned. Later he let loose a hawk which did not return. Then the men left the boat and took the animals and the seeds with them.

Babylon
Gilgamesh met an old man named Utnapishtim, who told him the following story. The gods came to Utnapishtim to warn him about a terrible flood that was coming. They instructed Utnapishtim to destroy his house and build a large ship. The ship was to be 10 dozen cubits high, wide and long. Utnapishtim was to cover the ship with pitch. He was supposed to take male and female animals of all kinds, his wife and family, provisions, etc. into the ship. Once ship was completed the rain began falling intensely. The rain fell for six days and nights. Finally things calmed and the ship settled on the top of Mount Nisir. After the ship had rested for seven days Utnapishtim let loose a dove. Since the land had not dried the dove returned. Next he sent a swallow which also returned. Later he let loose a raven which never returned since the ground had dried. Utnapishtim then left the ship.

Chaldean
There was a man by the name of Xisuthrus. The god Chronos warned Xisuthrus of a coming flood and told him to build a boat. The boat was to be 5 stadia by 2 stadia. In this boat Xisuthrus was to put his family, friends and two of each animal (male and female). The flood came. When the waters started to recede he let some birds loose. They came back and he noticed they had mud on their feet. He tried again with the same results. When he tried the third time the birds did not return. Assuming the water had dried up the people got out of the boat and offered sacrifices to the gods.

Aztec
A man named Tapi lived a long time ago. Tapi was a very pious man. The creator told Tapi to build a boat that he would live in. He was told that he should take his wife, a pair of every animal that was alive into this boat. Naturally everyone thought he was crazy. Then the rain started and the flood came. The men and animals tried to climb the mountains but the mountains became flooded as well. Finally the rain ended. Tapi decided that the water had dried up when he let a dove loose that did not return.

Whats with the doves or birds at the end........? This is just strange...

And for those concerned that VO might be plagiarizing another source or unfairly embellishing it, here's a link to the copy/paste he did: http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 12:41 PM
There probably was a great flood and many stories stemmed from that same great flood....it doesn't mean they copied off each other....

More fallacious ignorance. Those educated in cultural histories understand that that people traditionally live near water. Even today. They also understand that water is necessary for irrigation of crops once agriculture is introduced as a food production strategy. So it follows, given the number of floods that occur today which cause great amounts of property damage, injury and death, that cultures who pray to various gods to provide water see the sudden and catastrophic inundation of it on their "world" (the region in which they live) as an act of their god(s).

This is, again, a no-brainer for the critical and reasoned mind. Moreover, there are accounts of floods across civilizations that do not chronometrically correlate, demonstrating by itself that this wasn't a single event. Finally, geologic science and physics shows us that this is complete and utter poppycock. And for those that disagree, you'll need to cite a valid scientific reference or your own scientific data that shows otherwise. The cowardly "Google it" response won't work here.

I would estimate that the great flood occured around 28,740 BCE...scientists estimate that there was a great flood around 30,000 BCE

What data and research can you cite that supports this statement? I'm also waiting on you to support your statement that it was common practice for people in antiquity to release doves ca. 3000 BCE in Sumeria. Or anywhere in Mesopotamia for that matter. Please enlighten us with the citation to that statement as well.


Skin, how do you know of any "addition of embellished details," and what supposed "adaptive literary devices" are you talking about?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1329773&postcount=34

The post above details the embellishments themselves, but are you seriously saying that you've never encountered or understood the concept of literary embellishment? Cultures adapting stories of other cultures, changing and embellishing them to suit their own? Perhaps you should read the story of Ashenputel in its original German and compare the attempts of her sisters get their feet into the shoe. Or note that the vampire legend that existed long before Braum Stroker was vastly different with the superstitious Slavs until Stroker turned them into romantic goths.

SnakeLord
03-20-07, 12:44 PM
Like these:
- Gilgamesh was a special man and so was Noah
- There was boat in both stories
- There was a catastrophe in both stories
- There was a flood in both stories

There's a lot more to it than that - and as I've seen from your next statement even you now acknowledge so.


However this does not mean that the stories were based off each other.

Again there's a lot more to it than that.


Using your logic some how the Aztecs (even though there's no geographical connection) must have copied off the story from the Epic of Gilgamesh...

Not exactly, although I can understand how you would come to that conclusion. Purely out of interest though you should spend some time reading about the cocaine mummies. Cocaine only comes from South America and yet the Egyptians had it. An answer to this is hard to come by except to state that there must have been some kind of trade route between them, (although it has always been doubted). This example is often cited when people mention pyramids in other parts of the world. Still, that is neither here nor there..

We must take into account that you will find flooding in many different parts of the world, hell it even floods here in England. The Nile tends to flood every single year. It is quite worthless to state that so many cultures would not have flood stories of their own. The Aztec version, (there's seemingly several and very few that are accurate but based largely on pictographs), and.. "Most significantly, the time that these myths were heard from the local people was well after missionaries entered the region" which doesn't help matters at all, doesn't really even remotely resemble Sumerian/Babylonian region flood epics. It has what you would refer to as "stupid things".


in the beginning I had thought it was just a simple coincidence that he set a dove free at the end...but why do many different stories from different parts of the world that have no geographical connection have that dove, animals being on the boat, etc...in their flood myths?

Ancient people, (more so than modern people), owned animals. If there was a flood coming it would be unlikely they'd leave their animals, (and probably only source of income), behind. I can't actually find "so many different" stories that feature a dove.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 12:49 PM
Like these:
- Gilgamesh was a special man and so was Noah
- There was boat in both stories
- There was a catastrophe in both stories
- There was a flood in both stories

I don't believe I stated that Gilgamesh was the man chosen by the god to survive the flood. No wonder you have difficulty critically evaluating literary sources. Moreover, most of the flood myths you plagiarized from the link I included to keep you honest, are derived from the Christian myth of Noah and don't emerge until after Christian Missionaries attempt to force their mythologies down the throats of indigenous and aboriginal peoples they encountered. This further supports my point of literary embellishment and "borrowing" of one culture's stories by another. The Popol Vu is another example. It existed as an oral tradition long before it was written down in the post-Columbian era where elements of Christianity that they identified with are included. The religions of Voo Doo and Santaria as well as African Traditional Religions are also examples of this sort of acculturation.

Thank you for solidifying my point.

Yet another challenge for you, VO: what's the actual textual reference to the Aztec tale of Tapi and to when is it dated. Interesting that the link you plagiarized doesn't include citations, eh? It wouldn't do for their believers to have too much information, lest they dig deeper and accidentally critically analyze something and have questions.

VitalOne
03-20-07, 12:53 PM
We must take into account that you will find flooding in many different parts of the world, hell it even floods here in England. The Nile tends to flood every single year. It is quite worthless to state that so many cultures would not have flood stories of their own. The Aztec version, (there's seemingly several and very few that are accurate but based largely on pictographs), and.. "Most significantly, the time that these myths were heard from the local people was well after missionaries entered the region" which doesn't help matters at all, doesn't really even remotely resemble Sumerian/Babylonian region flood epics. It has what you would refer to as "stupid things".
They resemble the Sumerian/Babylonian flood myths in the same way that the Epic of Gilgamesh resembles Noah's Ark....

Here's the specific similarities:
- The flood covering everything (even the mountains)
- Animals on the boat
- The dove or bird release at the end

How do you explain the legends being carried to Tanzania to Mexico to Babylon to China, etc....?

VitalOne
03-20-07, 12:54 PM
I don't believe I stated that Gilgamesh was the man chosen by the god to survive the flood. No wonder you have difficulty critically evaluating literary sources.
I never said you stated it, I just said it was a stupid vague similarity...

Saquist
03-20-07, 12:54 PM
Your response is completely fallacious. It argues from personal incredulity and introduces a non sequitur. That you can't believe it to be possible doesn't negate the possibility that biblical mythology is adapted and borrowed, whilst being embellished and exaggerated, from much earlier written and oral traditions.

You're saying the bible isn't the most detailed of the accounts?
What evidence do you propose to reveal that shows that the bible account is definitively "borrowed"?

How is the the matching Flood accounts irrelevant to history?


Moreover, your statement that the bible includes more detail is a non sequitur because it doesn't follow that the addition of embellished details and adaptive literary devices provides validity to the myth's veracity. It would seem that your perceived deprivation is naught.

You're assuming that I meant it adds validity. You assume incorrectly. Historical and Truthful are two and very seperate subjects. It would seem that your percieved notions are your own and not mine.


But then, I've come to expect continued fallacy and lack of critical thought from the credulous and those that have already established conclusions to which they seek only data which is supportive.

what you've come to expect is far from any intrest to me. I'm intrested in Facts at this point. Your argument is also of little intrest to me as you have obviously established it upon a preconcieved perception that you've molded to place others outside your neatly defined understanding of what is believable and what is myth. You then proceed to tell me in so many words that it's not history without directly saying so there by avoiding the obvious implication that history is variable to he who tells it.

Further your erectile dysfunction is of the LEAST amount of concern to me such bizare and immoral discriptions should either be kept in your head or in your pants, despite whatever the measure of those two points may have to each other.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 12:57 PM
That's why they call him SkinWalker.

nietzschefan
03-20-07, 01:02 PM
Wow typical fight on this forum, the abolutes of science and religion at each others neck.

There *IS* middle ground. Believe it or not. Comon Skinwalker, there HAVE BEEN deluges big and small in the past. Ancient Greeks even came to this conclusion from fossil remains of water-life found in their mountains.

Though the Gilgamesh-Noah telling of the med, mini-deluge is obveous rip-off, are we now to throw away all the far-flung myths of the world as absolute nonsense? If even you were able to state yes a global deluge(or at least a flooding with long range effects, or at least admit truely magnificent local floods), HAPPENED, even hard line bible-thumpers here might be less vitrolic.

Why does any subject on these forums, that happens to be interesting, run into this Apolloian, Dionysian drama over and over? Take a leap of faith (both sides!) and use some basic logic. When the last ice age ended, there HAD to be some sort of flooding. As geography changes we KNOW there is sudden effects, esp near bodies of water.

Take a breath you guys and lets have some real discussion, let's try to figure out when the Noah/Gilgamesh/Sumerian flood happened, when the GLOBAL "flood"/rise happened. Or if you know please explain, we are all interested EVEN IF WE disagree.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 01:11 PM
I never said you stated it, I just said it was a stupid vague similarity...

It isn't a similarity at all, but it *is* evidence that you don't critically analyze even the words you write (or should we say copy/paste). Even the text you lifted from the creationist nutbar site correctly notes that Gilgamesh is not the one who built the boat. It was Utnapishtim.


You're saying the bible isn't the most detailed of the accounts?

It may be very detailed on a lot of things, but it is complete fabrication on many as well. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1240627&postcount=35



What evidence do you propose to reveal that shows that the bible account is definitively "borrowed"?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1329773&postcount=34



How is the the matching Flood accounts irrelevant to history?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1329773&postcount=34




You're assuming that I meant it adds validity. You assume incorrectly. Historical and Truthful are two and very seperate subjects. It would seem that your percieved notions are your own and not mine.

You're the one that said biblical mythology is the "most detailed." Why bother making the point if you aren't saying that it is the best source for historical validity. If this isn't the case, please, enlighten us to your intent with such grandiose and fallacious statements.



I'm intrested in Facts at this point.

That, too, remains to be demonstrated.



Further your erectile dysfunction is of the LEAST amount of concern to me such bizare and immoral discriptions should either be kept in your head or in your pants, despite whatever the measure of those two points may have to each other.

When discussing biblical mythology, trope, allegory and metaphor are the best tools of analysis. But, for such a trite and tropic comment that had little value beyond its amusing metaphorical ability, I find your willingness to bring it up as a point of discussion in every response to me to date interesting in and of itself.

VitalOne
03-20-07, 01:14 PM
It isn't a similarity at all, but it *is* evidence that you don't critically analyze even the words you write (or should we say copy/paste). Even the text you lifted from the creationist nutbar site correctly notes that Gilgamesh is not the one who built the boat. It was Utnapishtim
You're right I should've paid more attention in History class when we learning about it...instead I just BSed the whole essay...I didn't even know that nutbar site was creationist...

nietzschefan
03-20-07, 01:16 PM
Skin, doesn't even the origins of these myths, how certain details captured survive the passage of time, interest you at all?

Frankly if a deluge were to happen, a person prepared for it with a robust boat, WOULD tend to survive and get to tell his story(however he saw fit), and others simply would be dead.

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 01:18 PM
Take this Aztec legend:
Aztec- A man named Tapi lived a long time ago. Tapi was a very pious man. The creator told Tapi to build a boat that he would live in. He was told that he should take his wife, a pair of every animal that was alive into this boat. Naturally everyone thought he was crazy. Then the rain started and the flood came. The men and animals tried to climb the mountains but the mountains became flooded as well. Finally the rain ended. Tapi decided that the water had dried up when he let a dove loose that did not return.



Could you please show me historical record on someone called Tapi, and which God he worshipped? I believe you are quoting false data.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 01:19 PM
Wow typical fight on this forum, the abolutes of science and religion at each others neck.

There *IS* middle ground. Believe it or not. Come on Skinwalker, there HAVE BEEN deluges big and small in the past. Ancient Greeks even came to this conclusion from fossil remains of water-life found in their mountains.

To that, I don't deny. Indeed, I think that the Noachian flood myth and the myth of the Atrahasis and Deluge have common points of origin. The key is pre-literate societies that may have resided in the valley between two lakes that may have existed at the center of what is now the Persian Gulf. With sea level changes (gradual -not the 40 days/7days embellished by the later written myths), residents were forced into a diaspora. The Sumerians speak of "Dilmun" when they finally begin writing; the Egyptians speak of "Punt." The Garden of Eden myth in Genesis speaks of the confluence of rivers, which bathymetry in the Gulf has revealed near the region. Other, much earlier myths of Sumeria also speak of a paradise or 'heaven-like' place of origin.

So I don't entirely discount the validity of mythology. It just isn't the "most detailed" as biblical literalists who refuse to engage critical thought and literary analysis in their own myths believe. For them, such analysis of other cultures' myths is fine, but their own myths are sacred. What utter poppycock.

nietzschefan
03-20-07, 01:26 PM
So I don't entirely discount the validity of mythology. It just isn't the "most detailed" as biblical literalists who refuse to engage critical thought and literary analysis in their own myths believe. For them, such analysis of other cultures' myths is fine, but their own myths are sacred. What utter poppycock.

Ok thank you, I agree.

SnakeLord
03-20-07, 01:29 PM
They resemble the Sumerian/Babylonian flood myths in the same way that the Epic of Gilgamesh resembles Noah's Ark....

No, they don't For instance in the Aztec story all humans are turned into fish. The only similarity you'll really find is that there was a flood.


- The dove or bird release at the end

Kindly show me which specific stories contain this element.


How do you explain the legends being carried to Tanzania to Mexico to Babylon to China, etc....?

A) Missionaries

B) It floods in different regions on earth

C) Stories shared during trades.

From a biblical perspective Abraham, (the father of the jews), was a Sumerian that travelled from Ur before founding the jews. It is prevalent to state that he would have shared the stories he heard during his upbringing with these new found friends of his. Stories that much later on would be modified/ammended and so on.

The ram caught in the thicket for instance. While excavating Ur they found various artifacts depicting a ram caught in a thicket. Was Abraham made to attempt sacrifice of his own son or does the actual story have it's roots in much earlier stories? Again, if that's the case, the earlier story would be the more accurate of them, (if any were), purely on the basis that it had been written closer to the time of the actual events. Any re-telling of that story would be an embellishment of the original.


are we now to throw away all the far-flung myths of the world as absolute nonsense? If even you were able to state yes a global deluge(or at least a flooding with long range effects, or at least admit truely magnificent local floods), HAPPENED, even hard line bible-thumpers here might be less vitrolic.


All due respect nietzschefan but nobody here is denying that floods have happened. Nobody here is denying throwing away all flood stories as 'far flung myth'. You seemingly misunderstand the point of this conversation.


Why does any subject on these forums, that happens to be interesting, run into this Apolloian, Dionysian drama over and over?

You mean.. why do issues get discussed? What would you have us do? Oh wait...


Take a leap of faith (both sides!)

A) Leprechauns really DO exist!!! Well, that was fun wasn't it.

B) Faith is not the way of science.


Take a breath you guys and lets have some real discussion

It was a real discussion until you came along to interrupt that real discussion by telling us to have a real discussion. Bizarre.


let's try to figure out when the Noah/Gilgamesh/Sumerian flood happened, when the GLOBAL "flood"/rise happened

Seems you've come to the party with a pre-formed conclusion. When? Where is the evidence to suggest it ever actually happened?

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 01:32 PM
There *IS* middle ground. Believe it or not. Comon Skinwalker, there HAVE BEEN deluges big and small in the past. Ancient Greeks even came to this conclusion from fossil remains of water-life found in their mountains.


Please note, this is not indication of a flood, but rather of movement of the tectonic plates. The world is been absorbed into the earth near Australia and pushed out on the opposite direction. Those fossils are there because that area could easly have been underwater a billion of so years ago under an ocean.

VitalOne
03-20-07, 01:39 PM
Could you please show me historical record on someone called Tapi, and which God he worshipped? I believe you are quoting false data.

Michoacan (Mexico):

When the flood waters began to rise, a man named Tezpi entered into a great vessel, taking with him his wife and children and diverse seeds and animals. When the waters abated, the man sent out a vulture, but the bird found plenty of corpses to eat and didn't return. Other birds also flew away and didn't return. Finally, he sent out a hummingbird, which returned with a green bough in its beak. [Gaster, p. 122]

Source - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/C005854/text/mythfarworld_f.htm#AZT

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 01:42 PM
Hey wiz4rd, do you teach geology, that was amazing?

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 01:44 PM
You're saying the bible isn't the most detailed of the accounts?

It just occurred to me that you were referring to the biblical flood account versus other flood myths rather than the bible in general. I'll have to go back and look at your original post on "most detailed," but I was answering with the assumption that you were saying that all biblical accounts were the most detailed available on any subject the bible's many authors wrote of.

I hope that clarifies my responses to you.

But to answer your question above, I agree. The biblical account of the flood is far more detailed that the earlier accounts. Indeed, as you line up the accounts in order of date (the earliest being, I believe, the Deluge), they progress steadily in an evolution of added detail and embellishment.

We know that the Gilgamesh epic is probably the source for the Noachian flood myth because of particular details. But we see a steady progression from The Deluge, to the Atrahasis, to the various renditions of Gilgamesh -for which there are several known versions (Babylonian, Akkadian,...). We know that the myth is originally Sumerian because of the writing itself and the details mentioned in the earliest written versions, so it probably existed as an oral tale long before the final, written version of the Noachian myth.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 01:49 PM
Details in Noah's account predate the others.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 01:52 PM
Michoacan (Mexico):

When the flood waters began to rise, a man named Tezpi entered into a great vessel, taking with him his wife and children and diverse seeds and animals. When the waters abated, the man sent out a vulture, but the bird found plenty of corpses to eat and didn't return. Other birds also flew away and didn't return. Finally, he sent out a hummingbird, which returned with a green bough in its beak. [Gaster, p. 122]

Source - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/C005854/text/mythfarworld_f.htm#AZT

It was still written after the Spanish began converting the locals. This is exactly the type of acculturation and embellishment/creation of myth I was talking about.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 01:52 PM
Details in Noah's account predate the others.

Which ones? And what is the supporting data to demonstrate this?

w1z4rd
03-20-07, 02:27 PM
Michoacan (Mexico):

When the flood waters began to rise, a man named Tezpi entered into a great vessel, taking with him his wife and children and diverse seeds and animals. When the waters abated, the man sent out a vulture, but the bird found plenty of corpses to eat and didn't return. Other birds also flew away and didn't return. Finally, he sent out a hummingbird, which returned with a green bough in its beak. [Gaster, p. 122]

Source - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html



I could find no record of someone call Tezpi/Tapi (i notice your story is changing) in that link you gave me.


http://library.thinkquest.org/C005854/text/mythfarworld_f.htm#AZT

No real source or info yet. The above link is a rehash of the fraudulent information. No sources, no citations.. etc

Saquist
03-20-07, 03:17 PM
It just occurred to me that you were referring to the biblical flood account versus other flood myths rather than the bible in general. I'll have to go back and look at your original post on "most detailed," but I was answering with the assumption that you were saying that all biblical accounts were the most detailed available on any subject the bible's many authors wrote of.

The bible is a book of spirtuality so it's primary focus is spiritual. It just so happens that it touches on certain issues. I've have found it truthful in those issues but yes I meant just the biblical account of the flood. On other issues of history the bible relates a passing refrence to nations and people...very rarely is it directly relating individuals unless they impact Israel the Hebrews or of the many other than the 40 people that wrote the bible.


I hope that clarifies my responses to you.
Indeed it does!


But to answer your question above, I agree. The biblical account of the flood is far more detailed that the earlier accounts. Indeed, as you line up the accounts in order of date (the earliest being, I believe, the Deluge), they progress steadily in an evolution of added detail and embellishment.

This is not uncommon when we hear things there tends to be added embelishments. The grape vine effect.


We know that the Gilgamesh epic is probably the source for the Noachian flood myth because of particular details.

I realize that you lean toward this understanding. But "know" is a potent word indeed. The evidence is circumstantial. A forgive me...but I'm likely to take the bibles account as singularly true, untill proven otherwise.

Why? Like I said before the bible refrences History we know Jesus refrenced Noah and there was no semblance of mythical or story like aspect to his warning not to be like those during Noah's Day who didn't take note.

Also considering all those Flood tales...consider just for a moment that none of those people ever questioned whether the flood had occured. Yet they did endlessly speculate on when the next one occured.

The resulting centuries were marked by an increased intrest in astral phenomenon. Several bible writers were known for there study of the stars and were highly sought in ancient times. Those ancient people seemed to be able to discern that disaster was synonomous with heavenly omens and this continued well into the 13th and 14th century. The bible chronicles these people's attitude and behavior.

There are so many accounts...more than 200 I belive exactly 270 global in all. This establishes history if nothing else. That this event did occur. Few things are globally accepted. Science acknowledges them but this one is refuted. I ask why as history...the telling of the past says otherwise?



But we see a steady progression from The Deluge, to the Atrahasis, to the various renditions of Gilgamesh -for which there are several known versions (Babylonian, Akkadian,...). We know that the myth is originally Sumerian because of the writing itself and the details mentioned in the earliest written versions, so it probably existed as an oral tale long before the final, written version of the Noachian myth.

That's more than likely that written forms of the bible proceed the tail of Gilgamesh but this like I said is circumstantial. It doesn't establish origin but writing date. We have 270 similar accounts, who wrote they're version first out of an epic that occured everywhere is like comparing these accounts to scientific paper in which different scientist stumble upon the same conclusion and it's a mere matter of who publishes there version first.

But it's not that simple. The Flood was an event that occured everywhere and affected every thing not an isolated event that can be followed and traced along a path almost with ferensic like detail.

If (from your perspective) the bible account is true...writings of these events would have taken much time to proceed as civilization rebounds plants and tools used for writing became available. Some made due...the bible writters waited...and those accounts as a result verbal or otherwise were recorded for prosperity.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 07:18 PM
..."know" is a potent word indeed. The evidence is circumstantial. A forgive me...but I'm likely to take the bibles account as singularly true, untill proven otherwise.

Of course. That's the conclusion you've already arrived at without the need of supporting data.


Like I said before the bible refrences History we know Jesus refrenced Noah

Like someone once told me, "know" is such a potent word. How do you "know" this? I'm interested in how you know without citing biblical mythology to prove itself, by the way.


Also considering all those Flood tales...consider just for a moment that none of those people ever questioned whether the flood had occured. Yet they did endlessly speculate on when the next one occured.

Floods happen. I don't see what the problem is. Volcanoes happen. Tornados happen. Typhoons happen. Earthquakes, Tsunamis, etc.... all which get blamed on supernatural events by aboriginals the world over. The most pervasive natural disaster known to man is flooding, which plagues us even today. I'm not surprised the superstitious think it to be magical


There are so many accounts...more than 200 I belive exactly 270 global in all. This establishes history if nothing else. That this event did occur.

You've mistyped. I think you meant events rather than event. Plural rather than singular.


But it's not that simple. The Flood was an event that occured everywhere and affected every thing not an isolated event that can be followed and traced along a path almost with ferensic like detail.

There was no single flood event that affected the entire globe. Period. It isn't a claim that is supported in either cultural mythology (assuming that myths have bases in fact) nor in the geologic record. If you have evidence that exists outside of biblical mythology, I'm sure we're all interested and you have a Nobel prize destined your way.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-20-07, 07:37 PM
There's tons of evidence for it, for those without head in hole.

NDS
03-20-07, 08:11 PM
The vast array of so-called species are just manifestations of isolated breeding groups of the respective syngameons in disparate environments.

IAC, this would imply that the land vertebrates Noah took on the boat (cats, elephants, horses, alligators, gorillas, etc.) all evolved within their species in a matter of only 15,000 to 20,000 years.

If Noah took just tigers on the boat for the cat species, those tigers would have had to evolve into things like cheetahs, cougars, pumas, domesticated cats, etc. in a matter of only thousands of years when really evolution takes millions upon millions of years.

If your theory was right, we would still be seeing interspecies evolution today, yet there is no sign of it.

SkinWalker
03-20-07, 11:36 PM
There's tons of evidence for it, for those without head in hole.

Sure. Just cite one or two of the most convincing sets of data for us that we might discuss it here. In this forum. A discussion forum. Your failure to cite one or two of the most convincing data sets will be taken as conceding the point.

SnakeLord
03-21-07, 05:35 PM
Groups of breeders from each syngameon into isolated and disparate environments is what I was taking about, I thought obviously, many different "species" of cats can cross-breed, they are of the same syngameon

I'm unsure that I get what you're saying. You deny that a cat can evolve into a dog, (example), while happy to state that a cat can change into a tiger, (seemingly very quickly)? What exactly allows a cat to turn into a tiger but not a dog?


Read the stories Snake, they are hardly accounts of local floods.

According to who and what data? I mean are you trying to convince me that these ancient people could somehow see the entire planet? While crossing the English Channel there came a moment when all I could see was water, (admittedly my eyesight isn't great). The world at that moment, from my perspective, was entirely flooded. Of course I know better than that. The question is.. did they? If you say yes you'd have to support it with something.

NDS
03-21-07, 05:42 PM
I'm unsure that I get what you're saying. You deny that a cat can evolve into a dog, (example), while happy to state that a cat can change into a tiger, (seemingly very quickly)? What exactly allows a cat to turn into a tiger but not a dog?

Yeah, this is the main point. My pet cat's species could not evolve into lions and tigers in a matter of 20,000 years. That is like one second in the scope of millions of years. Dinos didn't evolve in 20,000 years. They evolved in millions of years. Slight difference.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-21-07, 05:46 PM
You're cat (if not fixed) can provide the sperm to combine with a tiger's egg to cause a "crossbreed," that's the point.

NDS
03-21-07, 05:48 PM
You're cat (if not fixed) can provide the sperm to combine with a tiger's egg to cause a "crossbreed," that's the point.

Yes but according to you there was no tiger to put the sperm into. Just one species of cat Noah brought with him.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-21-07, 05:52 PM
It was a cat which is not now seen, as the pair(s)' progeny dispersed in isolated breeding groups into new and variable ecologic niches, thus the many "species" of cats are merely "naturally selected" offspring of the Ark cats.

NDS
03-21-07, 05:52 PM
It was a cat which is not now seen, as the pair(s)' progeny dispersed in isolated breeding groups into new and variable ecologic niches, thus the many "species" of cats are merely "naturally selected" offspring of the Ark cats.

Good rationalization.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-21-07, 05:54 PM
It's born out with that the "species" of cats are interfertile, right?

SnakeLord
03-21-07, 05:54 PM
My pet cat's species could not evolve into lions and tigers in a matter of 20,000 years. That is like one second in the scope of millions of years. Dinos didn't evolve in 20,000 years. They evolved in millions of years. Slight difference.

A) Dinosaurs are a fiction. The bones were placed by the devil to fool mankind into thinking that the planet is older than it actually is. Why he'd do such a thing is unknown but hey, that's what I'm told.

B) 20,000 years is far too much. According to our truly religious 'friends', (if I dare use that word), the planet has only existed for what.. 10k tops? The flood would have then occured what.. 9k ago tops? In saying that all these animals must have 'evolved' or as the theists would prefer to say 'adapted' in under 10,000 years.

What bothers me here is that IAC scoffs at anyone that dares believe in the evidence that shows evolution occurs and that it takes a long damn time in preference of believing that in a miniscule 10,000 years two cats 'adapted' into all the lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, pumas, wildcats, cougars, lynx, bobcat, ocelot, panthers and so on and so forth that we see today. And he dares call us crazy?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-21-07, 05:55 PM
Those cats can all interbreed, proves the point.

SnakeLord
03-21-07, 05:56 PM
Those cats can all interbreed, proves the point.

Not really, no. You end up with 'mules'.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-21-07, 05:58 PM
You can't breed a cat with a dog, but you can with another cat, right?

NDS
03-21-07, 06:02 PM
IAC, you believe that a domesticated cat can somehow morph into a huge 1,000 pound tiger but not that both dogs and cats might have had a common ancestor? Interesting.

SnakeLord
03-21-07, 06:02 PM
You can't breed a cat with a dog, but you can with another cat, right?

Sure, this is accurate. However, you are espousing that a cat breeds with another cat and gives birth to a lion. If you believe this to be so then why can a cat not breed with a cat and give birth to a Nigerian sand frog?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-21-07, 06:04 PM
You don't seem to grasp the concept, but that's ok.

swivel
03-21-07, 06:04 PM
then why can a cat not breed with a cat and give birth to a Nigerian sand frog?

They can't?

NDS
03-21-07, 06:05 PM
Also, breeding between two different cat species and one cat species evolving into different cat species are two completely different things.

IAC, you suggest that cats actually evolved into what they are now, not that cats cross-bred, correct?

SnakeLord
03-21-07, 06:07 PM
You don't seem to grasp the concept, but that's ok.

Certainly a noble way of escaping the discussion. *end sarcasm*

But hey, I'll go with that.. I missed something along the lines. Instead of just telling me I missed something along the lines, why don't you explain what I missed?


They can't?

Who's to say? Perhaps Noah only had 2 animals on the ark and from there they gave birth to everything we see today, even tulips and daffodils.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-21-07, 06:10 PM
Think about it awhile, it might sink in.

SnakeLord
03-21-07, 06:11 PM
Think about it awhile, it might sink in.

Would be better if you just explained it heh..

NDS
03-21-07, 10:56 PM
It was a cat which is not now seen, as the pair(s)' progeny dispersed in isolated breeding groups into new and variable ecologic niches, thus the many "species" of cats are merely "naturally selected" offspring of the Ark cats.

Your belief:
DNA in animals can be mutated over time due to their environment and passed on to their offspring

Darwinists Belief:
DNA in animals can be mutated over time due to their environment and passed on to their offspring

So refresh my memory again as to why you don't believe in Darwinian Evolution.

spidergoat
03-21-07, 11:11 PM
Maybe it involved a process like this. (http://www.shrinkydinks.com/index.htm)

adam2314
03-21-07, 11:27 PM
Raelians.. Do they have the correct answer ???..

NDS
03-21-07, 11:28 PM
IAC's theory is called Hybrid speciation


Hybrid speciation

Hybridization between two different species sometimes leads to a distinct phenotype. This phenotype can also be fitter than the parental lineage and as such natural selection may then favor these individuals. Eventually, if reproductive isolation is achieved, it may lead to a separate species. However, reproductive isolation between hybrids and their parents is particularly difficult to achieve and thus hybrid speciation is considered an extremely rare event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation


Not to mention, no cases of hybrid speciation have been recorded which involve one animal becoming much different at all from the animals which produced it (such as a domestic cat into a tiger).

IAC, how many types of cats, or of any species for that matter, did Noah bring onto the ark with him?

Did he bring 1 species of cats which evolved into other cats?

Medicine*Woman
03-22-07, 12:59 PM
Would be better if you just explained it heh..

*************
M*W: God forbid that IAC should learn that the story of Noah was just a myth.

w1z4rd
03-22-07, 01:17 PM
Maybe it involved a process like this. (http://www.shrinkydinks.com/index.htm)

I found out how they preserved the cats on the ark: http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/ :D

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 01:40 PM
NDS, it's syngameons which were brought on the Ark, not species, which is a meaningless term.

Cat's which can produce offspring with other cats are by definition of the same syngameon, and that's many so-called species of cats, right?

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 01:56 PM
Cat's which can produce offspring with other cats are by definition of the same syngameon, and that's many so-called species of cats, right?

So you're still claiming that 2 tabby's bonked and gave birth to a lion?

spidergoat
03-22-07, 01:56 PM
I found out how they preserved the cats on the ark: http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/ :D

I really hope that's a joke.

w1z4rd
03-22-07, 02:21 PM
I really hope that's a joke.

Yup, it used to be a satire site started up by a MIT student. It got taken down when animal rights activists thought it was real and got the FBI involved. Was a real lark, but yes, the site is completely satire. It used to be hosted at bonsaikitten.com.

It actually became a bit of an internet legend before the official site got closed down: http://cats.about.com/cs/advocacy/a/bonsai_kitten.htm (the story).

Kinda like the Landover Baptist Church.

Read this part I quoted from the site and tell me if you think it is realistic:


Waste Removal. Left to its own devices, the kitten would quickly fill its vessel with its own urine and feces, leading to certain sickness and death, not to mention the inevitably unpleasant appearance and odor. The best solution is to seal the kitten's anus with Super Glue prior to insertion, and then insert a waste tube through a third whole in the vessel.

Sick? Maybe... Serious? Not at all.

spidergoat
03-22-07, 02:46 PM
I wonder if there are miniature cats, like toy dogs...

NDS
03-22-07, 04:08 PM
NDS, it's syngameons which were brought on the Ark, not species, which is a meaningless term.

Cat's which can produce offspring with other cats are by definition of the same syngameon, and that's many so-called species of cats, right?

Let's see which animals entered the boat with Noah and his crew:

1. Every beast after its kind

2. All cattle after their kind

3. Every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind

4. Every bird after its kind, every bird of every sort

IAC, please tell me what numbers 1-4 means. The phrase "Every bird of every sort" suggests that God didn't just say, "Bring in the bird syngameon." Use of the term "Cattle" suggest that cattle didn't evolve, they were already cattle. Maybe I misread the verses IAC, but I don't believe the Bible said "and all the syngameons of animals entered into the ark."

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 04:16 PM
The Bible uses the term kinds (of animals), and biologists estimate that about 20,000 kinds (syngameons) of animals need have been on Noah's Ark.

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 04:34 PM
Kindly answer my question IAC.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 04:41 PM
What question?

NDS
03-22-07, 04:48 PM
IAC did you just make up the word "syngameon"? If not, where did you get it?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 04:50 PM
It's a term from the biological sciences.

NDS
03-22-07, 04:59 PM
The Bible uses the term kinds (of animals), and biologists estimate that about 20,000 kinds (syngameons) of animals need have been on Noah's Ark.

"Biologists estimate." That's all I needed to hear. How do I know you didn't make up the 20,000 number?

spidergoat
03-22-07, 04:59 PM
Syngameons - species groups with naturally occurring hybridizations. Quite common among plants, but also mammals. e.g. Coyotes and Wolves...

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:00 PM
Good.

NDS
03-22-07, 05:02 PM
Syngameons - species groups with naturally occurring hybridizations. Quite common among plants, but also mammals. e.g. Coyotes and Wolves...

LOL. Yeah. Not "a new hybrid species." BIIIIIIGGGGG difference.

NDS
03-22-07, 05:05 PM
IAC's belief:
DNA in animals can be mutated over time due to their environment and passed on to their offspring

Darwinists Belief:
DNA in animals can be mutated over time due to their environment and passed on to their offspring

So refresh my memory again as to why you don't believe in Darwinian Evolution.

NDS
03-22-07, 05:16 PM
Syngameons - species groups with naturally occurring hybridizations. Quite common among plants, but also mammals. e.g. Coyotes and Wolves...

Hey IAC, did two golden retrievers ever have sex and a wolf came out?

LOL. Thank you and good night.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:20 PM
You're obviously in a bit over your head there NDS, hang in there buddy.

spidergoat
03-22-07, 05:20 PM
Since most species date to before the time of Noah (or mankind for that matter), his explanation doesn't hold up.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:21 PM
You assume much in saying that.

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 05:28 PM
What question?

Ok, one more time..

Do you espouse that two cats had sex and gave birth to a lion?

If yes I would ask as a further question how all the other species of cat came to be, (i.e did this same pair of cats give birth to a lion, then a tiger and then this lion and tiger gave birth to a panther ([which would be incorrect because you end up with a sterile liger])? or that this same pair of cats gave birth to a male and female of each species..

If no, do you think it is valid to claim that in a maximum of 10,000 years that this pair of cats - through adaptation - gave rise to all the species of cat that you see today?

Furthermore I would once again ask that if a pair of cats, (siamese for the sake of discussion), can give birth to a lion why they don't continue to do so.

Many thanks.

NDS
03-22-07, 05:29 PM
IAC, I know you have tendonitus and don't like typing more than one sentence, but please explain to me what the common ancestor of the cat is.

NDS
03-22-07, 05:39 PM
You're obviously in a bit over your head there NDS, hang in there buddy.

This is supposed to be your area of mastery, yet you continue show how little you know about it.

So instead of the one liner posts and insults, how about teaching us all your theory?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:41 PM
A pair of cats with a gene pool extensive enough to subdivide into the various types of cats was the common ancestor of the cats.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:42 PM
I gotta save some of my dexterity for my bass playing.

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 05:44 PM
I'm sorry, was that a yes?

Seriously IAC, one line is not sufficient. If that was a yes to my question kindly answer the others. If a no kindly answer the question related to the 'no' side.

Many thanks.

P.S Listen, this isn't about right or wrong it's about your perspective. Nobody can ever get that if you refuse to offer more than a vague one-liner. While that is your right, it doesn't help anyone. Kindly try, you have nothing to lose.

P.P.S When you mention an "extensive gene pool" you are aware you're talking about more than 2 animals? If you're talking 2 animals the 'gene pool' is hardly "extensive", indeed there's only actually 2 of them. Please clarify

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:46 PM
Such genetic diversification, Snake, occurs quickly, look at the variety of pups which two mutt parents produce.

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 05:53 PM
Such genetic diversification, Snake, occurs quickly, look at the variety of pups which two mutt parents produce.

Not really, no. Labradors do not give birth to poodles.

To go back to cats, (because unlike dogs they do not [so much] suffer from human interference).

If you breed a tiger with a lion, (which happens very rarely in the wild), you end up with a liger. Now, in every instance of this event the male ends up sterile. The female is fertile.... So, you now have a fertile female liger. If you then breed a tiger with the liger you end up with a ti-liger, (only ever found from mans intervention and exceptionally rare). You could of course, (if you use a lion), end up with a li-liger. So then you end up with a sterile ti-liger. Now, if the female was fertile and you bred it with a tiger you'd end up with a ti-ti-liger, (I assume, I've never seen it done).

It really isn't as simple as you'd wish it were. What you are saying is that two cats gave birth to a lion. What then did that lion breed with? If it bred with the cats you'd end up with a mule, (and invariably the problem seen above). So what you would now have to espouse is that these two cats gave birth to two lions, (male/female), which then bred lions from then on. Then the same original cats gave birth to two tigers, two cougars, two panthers, two cheetahs etc.

If you are going to make such a claim isn't it better just to state that 2 of each animal was on the ark? After all, once we're done with cats we then have many more animals to go, (snakes etc).

Think about it for a moment.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:54 PM
I said mutts.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:56 PM
We'll call them hyper-mutts.

Roman
03-22-07, 05:57 PM
Why did noah have to put all the animals in the arc?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 05:59 PM
He didn't put them all in, but because God told him the Deluge was on the way.

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 06:00 PM
I said mutts.

I said "think about it for a moment" and this is the best your brain could come up with? Is this what humankind comes down to? I'm shocked, truly.

However, needless to say, two "mutts" don't give birth to a poodle.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 06:03 PM
Two hyper-mutts could, after a few generations.

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 06:07 PM
Two hyper-mutts could, after a few generations.

Sorry, what's a hyper mutt?

P.S Can I just say something.. You know, in 30 or 40 years you and I will be corpses. we'll be rotting in our crypts. It wont bother us then because we'll be dead, but right now I can not accept that you're happy going through life with such astounding ignorance. This isn't about whether you're wrong or not, it's about how you refuse to question or answer anything. I personally find it disturbing.

But hey, I'm a sucker for punishment... (apparently an eternal one).. So once again:

Do you believe that two cats, (hyper cats if you must), had sex and gave birth to a lion? (it's a yes or no answer.. c'mon, I know you love giving short answers, they get no shorter than that)

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 06:09 PM
Perhaps in one generation, but probably after several.

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 06:11 PM
Perhaps in one generation, but probably after several.

Ok, so I'll take that as a yes. (btw, what's a hyper mutt)?

So, out of interest, what mechanism exactly stops these two cats from giving birth to a dog?

NDS
03-22-07, 06:12 PM
Perhaps in one generation, but probably after several.

Sorry IAC, but 10 million species of animals cannot evolve or "speciate" from 40,000 animals in a period of 10,000 years. Not possible. If it were, we would be seeing it happen today.

Also, how do you explain faunal succession in rocks?

Roman
03-22-07, 06:12 PM
He didn't put them all in, but because God told him the Deluge was on the way.

Why did he have to even build an arc?
Isn't god powerful enough to preserve animals by his divine whim?

Your story doesn't really hold water- at least, your trying to integrate Canaanite mythology with later Greek philosophy.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 06:12 PM
The two are hyper-mutt cats, not hyper-mutt dogs, do you see the difference?

Medicine*Woman
03-22-07, 06:14 PM
He didn't put them all in, but because God told him the Deluge was on the way.

*************
M*W: Let me guess which animals Noah missed... dragons (the fire-breathing kind and the regular breath ones), unicorns, talking serpents, gingham dogs, calico cats, flying pigs, cows that jump over the moon, laughing dogs, cockhorses, ova that sit on high walls, prolific writing geese, blackbirds baked in pies, and of course, snips (whatever they were).

SnakeLord
03-22-07, 06:22 PM
The two are hyper-mutt cats, not hyper-mutt dogs, do you see the difference?

I'm afraid I don't, quite probably because - even though I've asked several times - you've failed to explain to me what a hyper mutt is. What is a hyper mutt? What is a hyper mutt cat?

If indeed these hyper mutt cats/dogs do exist that give birth to any old kind they feel like, why does this not happen right here, right now?

NDS
03-22-07, 06:32 PM
"Natural selection does occur within the respective animal kinds, but only because of genetic loss ("speciation"), not because of genetic enhancement (Darwinian evolution)."

- IAC

Below is a scientist making IAC's claim look like something a third grader ripped out of thin air.


You're obviously in a bit over your head there NDS, hang in there buddy.

I might be, but this guy makes you look pretty "simple":

"However, evolution does not work like that. What happens is that mutations transfer entire domains and stretches of sequence around; or random insertions form completely novel domains and folds. These changes can have 1) a negative effect (somewhat likely), in which case they are selected against; 2) neutral effect (most likely), in which case they will remain in the genome to be acted upon further; 3) positive effect (unlikely in the first iteration), in which case they are selected for.

The most frequent case, therefore, will be: protein has changed, there are all these disordered loops or extra helices, barrels, sheets, whatever - but it still works. Activity may be affected, but not sufficiently to make a large difference.

What happens then? Small mutations will affect these new domains and alter their specificities. Again, there is a reason why so much of the biochemistry follows similar paths and similar reactions. The protein folds are similar. Evolution relies on taking something that already exists, and altering it slightly, to produce a novel effect. The cumulative effect over a long period of time can be staggering - as directed evolution experiments have shown, and as observed evolution in the last century has shown."

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html#run

This is an actual scientist which knows more about DNA then you will ever dream of.

JimHR
03-22-07, 07:03 PM
Okay just to get it out of the way, these ideas about creation are not some beliefs that some individual made up today--they are written in the Bible. The Genesis account has been a part of history as long as the Bible has been. Thus if you really want to know why creation is so fascinating, read the Genesis account in the Bible.

Just some things I've learned about studying the Bible is that there is no conclusive evidence as to the age of the animals that were brought into the ark. But it is probable that they were all infant. There was plenty of room. It was taller than a three story building, its deck area was the size of 36 tennis courts, it was 450 ft in length and 75 feet wide. Noah had 120 years to build it with his three sons. It was a big project, but Noah was faithful.

"Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the earth, two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah." (Genesis 7:8-9)

PsychoticEpisode
03-22-07, 07:09 PM
Okay just to get it out of the way, these ideas about creation are not some beliefs that some individual made up today--

Hybrid mutt cats proliferate the post Genesis account. It getting harder and harder to justify a belief.

Medicine*Woman
03-22-07, 07:32 PM
Okay just to get it out of the way, these ideas about creation are not some beliefs that some individual made up today--they are written in the Bible. The Genesis account has been a part of history as long as the Bible has been. Thus if you really want to know why creation is so fascinating, read the Genesis account in the Bible.

Just some things I've learned about studying the Bible is that there is no conclusive evidence as to the age of the animals that were brought into the ark. But it is probable that they were all infant. There was plenty of room. It was taller than a three story building, its deck area was the size of 36 tennis courts, it was 450 ft in length and 75 feet wide. Noah had 120 years to build it with his three sons. It was a big project, but Noah was faithful.

"Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the earth, two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah." (Genesis 7:8-9)

*************
M*W: Hello, and welcome to sciforums. Out of curiosity, how can you be sure the bible is 100% correct? What do you base its accuracy on? Can you verify how you came to the conclusion that the bible is accurate historically? The story of Noah and the Ark is definitely an interesting tale, but there are just so many versions to that story, including the one about Gilgamesh and the Deluge that predates Noah's story by several thousand years.

Does it really matter if all the animals Noah brought into the Ark were infants? I can't see how that would even matter. Are you saying that they were so young that they didn't breed while they were on the Ark? I mean cats and dogs can breed at about 6 months of age (not that I'd recommend it to any responsible pet owner), and it has been known to happen when the pet owner is not looking!

Gosh, I went on a cruise for my birthday and the cruise liner wasn't even that big! And I thought it was huge! Do you really believe that Noah was faithful to god or that he just worried about drowning? There's a fine line there between honest faith and saving one's own skin.

How did the clean animals get along with the unclean animals? Do you think Noah and his sons and his sons' wives and children were happy to pick-up all that animal doo? How did they dispose of it? Did they throw it overboard? What ecological repercussions did that have on our planet? And what if some of the animals were pregnant at the time of boarding the Ark? Did any of them conceive while they were on the ark? Did any of them die out during the flood? Did Noah and his family need to sacrifice and eat some of the animals like lambs, birds, fish (maybe even pork or ham)?

One thing I simply don't understand about the unclean animals. If pork, cloven hoof animals, shrimp, lobster, clams and other mollusks were forbidden to eat by god, why was Noah commanded to bring them on board? What purpose did they serve if they were forbidden?

I hope these questions aren't too hard. I look forward to your answers.

JimHR
03-22-07, 07:37 PM
I know I am entering this disscusion late, but I just wanted to ask why we can't see species evolving today? If we can't see it--why should I believe in it? I believe facts. The Bible says each will reproduce "after their kind." That's not pseudoscience--that's fact.

And also why have we not found more transitional links from the supposed transitions? I mean--how much has this generation evolved? and look at how many remains we have left behind! And I am not just talking about humans--what about dogs and cats and elephants?

We have found dinosaurs's skeletons. Why did we find them in their complete form? Where are their transitional links? Shouldn't the many millions of transitions in all of creation be somewhere between the dinosaurs and the present levels of the earth's crust?

And last but not least how can science explain life after death?

ashura
03-22-07, 07:44 PM
If we can't see it--why should I believe in it?

Can you see God JimHR?


And last but not least how can science explain life after death?

How can you claim that there is life after death?

JimHR
03-22-07, 08:30 PM
Ashura--hey how's it going?


Can you see God JimHR?
How can you claim that there is life after death?

Well I guess the question is what would God be if we could see Him? If he revealed Himself to us in all His glory, where would our ability to choose be? God has given plenty of ways to know about Him and discover His character--our conscience, creation, the Bible and the millions of Christians around the world--how could it be any less obvious? And what's more the holiness and righteousness of God cannot dwell with wickedness.

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Well its not my claim--its the claim of the Bible. I claim to not know, so I trust in the Bible rather than myself.

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:13

Thanks for asking me those questions!

JimHR
03-22-07, 08:41 PM
*************
M*W: Hello, and welcome to sciforums. Out of curiosity, how can you be sure the bible is 100% correct? What do you base its accuracy on? Can you verify how you came to the conclusion that the bible is accurate historically? The story of Noah and the Ark is definitely an interesting tale, but there are just so many versions to that story, including the one about Gilgamesh and the Deluge that predates Noah's story by several thousand years.

Does it really matter if all the animals Noah brought into the Ark were infants? I can't see how that would even matter. Are you saying that they were so young that they didn't breed while they were on the Ark? I mean cats and dogs can breed at about 6 months of age (not that I'd recommend it to any responsible pet owner), and it has been known to happen when the pet owner is not looking!

Gosh, I went on a cruise for my birthday and the cruise liner wasn't even that big! And I thought it was huge! Do you really believe that Noah was faithful to god or that he just worried about drowning? There's a fine line there between honest faith and saving one's own skin.

How did the clean animals get along with the unclean animals? Do you think Noah and his sons and his sons' wives and children were happy to pick-up all that animal doo? How did they dispose of it? Did they throw it overboard? What ecological repercussions did that have on our planet? And what if some of the animals were pregnant at the time of boarding the Ark? Did any of them conceive while they were on the ark? Did any of them die out during the flood? Did Noah and his family need to sacrifice and eat some of the animals like lambs, birds, fish (maybe even pork or ham)?

One thing I simply don't understand about the unclean animals. If pork, cloven hoof animals, shrimp, lobster, clams and other mollusks were forbidden to eat by god, why was Noah commanded to bring them on board? What purpose did they serve if they were forbidden?

I hope these questions aren't too hard. I look forward to your answers.

Hey M*W!!

Thanks for replying! I know that I didn’t really address all the questions you posted but I would be a liar if I said that I knew all the answers from Genesis. It would take more that a lifetime to learn all the truths of Scripture this is why it never gets old in a person’s lifetime. I guess I am just wondering which of those questions hinders you from risking the destiny of your soul?

I am sure of the Bible because I live my life according to it. It is the Book of Life. Is there any other book you want to live your life by? And it is interesting to know that the Bible informs us of every important aspect of life. This is what God intended. He gave us the Bible to have "light" in the world. What evidence have you personally discovered that disproves it? I mean life attests to it truths. I don't believe it because I was raised that way (my life is very different now from when I grew up). I believe it because I chose to--as the Bible even says: "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15

I definitely am not all-knowing--especially when it comes to matters of life after death. Why not believe the historical accounts written by the 40 men, who spoke 3 different languages, lived on 3 different continents, over a period of 1500 years, with perfect agreement? The fact is I am not going to trust myself with such an important decision as the destiny of my soul. God formed us in the womb and our soul was created.

I'd rather be a believer than a doubter. Its not gonna hurt you to believe. Its better to believe than to doubt.

The Bible has to be either all true, or not true at all. If only some parts are true, how could I choose which parts those were?

I know that I have already written a lot but I just wanted to add again that in order to fully understand the nature of God you have to read about Him in the Bible. This is why he gave us the Word and why no one on the face of the earth can deny the influence of the Bible. It has been translated into hundreds of languages.

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

JimHR
03-22-07, 08:43 PM
Please understand that the following verses are from the Bible and not my own viewpoints. Choose to believe it or not.

JimHR
03-22-07, 08:45 PM
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

JimHR
03-22-07, 08:48 PM
"Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:3-9

PsychoticEpisode
03-22-07, 09:05 PM
"Scoffers will come in the last days,

I sell a product that cleans floors. Somebody else sells a different floor cleaner. We both expound on how great our products are. It would not be uncommon for me to disparage the other guys product to keep mine in the forefront. No different than advertisements today. Religious movements don't want to fail so they are susceptible to the same tactics.

Scoffers won't be coming in the final days because they have been here all along and thus will be here in the final days also. How do you know if the final days aren't referring to the fairy tale you believe in? Makes more sense than the end of the world.

spidergoat
03-22-07, 09:14 PM
why we can't see species evolving today?
In fact we do.


...these ideas about creation are not some beliefs that some individual made up today--they are written in the Bible.
OK, so they were made up a long time ago.


Please understand that the following verses are from the Bible and not my own viewpoints. Choose to believe it or not.
From a scientific standpoint, the source doesn't matter.


...two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah
That wouldn't have worked. The genetic diversity we see today, and lack of it in some endangered and zoo animals, proves that modern animals did not descend from a single pair some 5-10 thousand years ago.


If we can't see it--why should I believe in it?
Do you believe in the electrons flowing through your computer, encoding information that I can see miles away? Can you see them?


"Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:3-9
I'm not scoffing anything (well sometimes I scoff at IceAgeCivilizations, but he's just a man), I'm offering an explanation, perhaps an elaboration of the tales of old. Note that while the passage above seems to encourage one to seek the kingdom of heaven within, I don't think it really applies to evolutionary science. Note:

Pro 1:22 How long, you simple ones, will foolish things be dear to you? and pride a delight to the haters of authority? how long will the foolish go on hating knowledge?

Pro 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the start of knowledge: but the foolish have no use for wisdom and teaching.

Pro 10:13 In the lips of him who has knowledge wisdom is seen; but a rod is ready for the back of him who is without sense.

Pro 12:1 A lover of training is a lover of knowledge; but a hater of teaching is like a beast.




But this one is the reason I think you chose not to keep an open mind and heed the words of scientific knowledge:

Ecc 1:18 Because in much wisdom is much grief, and increase of knowledge is increase of sorrow.

There is comfort in your beliefs.

NDS
03-22-07, 09:57 PM
I know I am entering this disscusion late, but I just wanted to ask why we can't see species evolving today? If we can't see it--why should I believe in it? I believe facts. The Bible says each will reproduce "after their kind." That's not pseudoscience--that's fact.

JimHR.

Where did you get your degree in advanced palentology, genetics, etc.?

The point is, you are far from being an expert on anything related to advanced evolution (as am I). And clearly you have not done much of any research into the issue of evolution. You simply rationalize everything to support "The Bible."

We don't see "new" species being formed today because that takes literally millions of years. Humans have only been around for about 10 thousand. It's pretty clear why we haven't seen an entirely new species develop.

The Bible says each will reproduce after their kind because that is exactly what happens. Only dogs and reproduce with other dog type creatures. Only cats with cats. This in no way excludes the idea of "Darwinian Evolution."


And also why have we not found more transitional links from the supposed transitions? I mean--how much has this generation evolved? and look at how many remains we have left behind! And I am not just talking about humans--what about dogs and cats and elephants?

We have found dinosaurs's skeletons. Why did we find them in their complete form? Where are their transitional links? Shouldn't the many millions of transitions in all of creation be somewhere between the dinosaurs and the present levels of the earth's crust?

Each dinosaur fossil actually is a "transitional link" since one dino led to another, which led to another, and on and on. Mammals, by the way, were around during the reign of dinosaurs. In fact, we have dug up fossils which represent creatures which are part mammal, part reptile from the dino era. There is your "transitional link." If you had done the research, instead of using the Bible as your only source of scientific data, then you would have realized this.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 09:58 PM
Believers do have The Comforter (Holy Spirit).

NDS
03-22-07, 10:01 PM
"Natural selection does occur within the respective animal kinds, but only because of genetic loss ("speciation"), not because of genetic enhancement (Darwinian evolution)."

- IAC

Again, here is more info from a qualified person which clearly refutes IAC's extremely limited scope on the subject of evolution:

"How frustrating do you think that can get? Constantly encountering people who have barely spent any time studying the issue you have studied in great detail, and then telling you that you are completely wrong? Not only are you wrong, you are believing something that is so obviously impossible, any fourth grader can see the impossibility! And then, to top it off, they give you arguments that are incorrect in out of themselves?

You want me to see the impossibility of evolution? I once lost six months of work because a bacterum evolved a new protein, and I didn't catch it immediately. I use evolution-based bioinformatics programs as a part of my daily job; they provide correct results, something they couldn't do if the theory they are based on wasn't sound. Two weeks ago I attended a seminar on how cancer cells develop resistance to chemoterapy drugs by evolving specific pumps that pump the drug out from the cell. Yesterday I've been catching up with new developments in HIV therapies, which is a constant race to outpace the staggeringly swift evolution of the virus. And this is just a barest scratch on the surface - I could go on for days."

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 10:21 PM
It's still a virus, when will it supposedly morph into a frog?

NDS
03-22-07, 10:23 PM
You're obviously in a bit over your head there IAC, hang in there buddy.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 10:27 PM
It is still a virus, no morphing into a new kind of creature, right?

PsychoticEpisode
03-22-07, 10:43 PM
Around the same time JC returns? Honestly IAC, what a lame retort. You'd rather support hybrid mutt kittens morphing into lions and tigers practically before our eyes?

Science is chipping away at old myths and you can't stop it. Beliefs such as yours are all you have left but they're eroding daily.

You remind me of Hiroo Onada, the last known WWII Japanese soldier to finally surrender. The little Samurai fought on for 29 years, they knew he was there, his family tried several times to convince him of the truth, they dropped leaflets from the sky but because he was resolved like you in his beliefs he carried on. When he finally capitulated and the truth was confirmed, he cried like a baby after realizing he'd wasted the prime of his life.

Whether you get to that moment is anybody's guess but until you do you're destined to live in a dream world while the cancer affecting your mind slowly chews away at you.

NDS
03-22-07, 10:44 PM
It is still a virus, no morphing into a new kind of creature, right?


Think about it awhile, it might sink in.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 10:46 PM
So what new creature will the virus supposedly morph into NDS? And what did the viruses "from five hundred million years ago" supposedly morph into?

NDS
03-22-07, 10:59 PM
Google things like precambrian, Phanerozoic, cambrian explosion, eukaryote, etc.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 11:03 PM
So the viruses today are supposedly morphing into new creatures?

NDS
03-22-07, 11:09 PM
You don't seem to grasp the concept, but that's ok.

James R
03-22-07, 11:14 PM
So the viruses today are supposedly morphing into new creatures?

Viruses are like the program of a computer. Change the program and the computer behaves differently.

It is not so much the viruses themselves morphing into new creatures, since the viruses are not the "creatures" you're talking about. Rather, the creatures the viruses are inside are changed by the actions of the viruses.

Your error is equivalent to mistaking a computer program for the computer running it.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 11:23 PM
The creatures with the viruses inside do not change into new kinds of creatures, right?

James R
03-22-07, 11:35 PM
The creatures with the viruses inside do not change into new kinds of creatures, right?

Depends what you mean by that.

If you have a cold virus, does that make you a different kind of being from when you don't have a cold virus?

You need to be more specific.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-22-07, 11:38 PM
Still human.

James R
03-23-07, 02:27 AM
So, we've established that a cold virus is not sufficient to turn human beings into a different species. Good.

What's next?

JimHR
03-23-07, 04:40 AM
I sell a product that cleans floors. Somebody else sells a different floor cleaner. We both expound on how great our products are. It would not be uncommon for me to disparage the other guys product to keep mine in the forefront. No different than advertisements today. Religious movements don't want to fail so they are susceptible to the same tactics.

Scoffers won't be coming in the final days because they have been here all along and thus will be here in the final days also. How do you know if the final days aren't referring to the fairy tale you believe in? Makes more sense than the end of the world.

Hey PsychoticEpisode!! (what made you choose that name by the way?)

Thanks for replying to my posts! Well first of all it is important to note that this verse is not specifically talking about religious movements.

It is a prophecy of the prophets who lived thousands of years ago. They were prophesizing that people in the future would turn away from the belief that God created the heavens and the earth with age and "heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth."

I see this as prophecy being fulfilled. How many years has the theory of evolution been established mainstream science? Not very many. In fact--this theory with its many teachers--have led the war over belief in God's creation. Before Darwin, much of the world believed in God's creation. The universal truths of the Ten Commandments have only been removed from public schools recently. The question then is: how did these prophets know that a teaching which counters God's creation (evolution) would become accepted by many teachers? You can tell that the prophets are referring to evolution even more specifically when they continue, "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

What is really neat to know is that this is just one of over 300 prophesies that are in the Bible. Can you do this? Just try--what will it hurt you? Ask God to give you light to understand these passages. Please be open minded. You need to be born again just like Nicodemus. A child born into a Chinese family does not understand English. But a child born into an English family will understand English perfectly. You cannot understand the things of God until you are born again into the family of God. A father cannot force his child to love Him. We must choose to love Him.

As for the other religions, no other religion proclaims a risen Savior. And the authority of the Bible must be supreme for it to be truth--which it is in all the world.

JimHR
03-23-07, 05:53 AM
In fact we do.

We can see one species evolve into another!?! Please do tell me and the rest of the world this so we can reveal the biggest discovery in the world! Buddy I had to be honest with myself when I realized there is no evidence of this--I know it is hard. Why should I believe evolution if every time a species reproduces--it is still the same kind? Don't most scientists proclaim seeing is believing?


OK, so they were made up a long time ago.

They have stood the test of time. They are universal truths that apply to everyone who has ever existed. Rich or poor, man or woman, ugly or pretty, smart or dumb, young or old, black or white--need I continue? That's pretty profound. Why don't you agree? God is so fair that He lets anyone discover Him.


From a scientific standpoint, the source doesn't matter.

Well no wonder its hard for some to understand the end product. You don't know the source! Know the source then the end product will be understood. Come on man!


That wouldn't have worked. The genetic diversity we see today, and lack of it in some endangered and zoo animals, proves that modern animals did not descend from a single pair some 5-10 thousand years ago.

Well, what you see is recombinations of innate genetic factors. Just like the races of the world came from Adam and Eve. Thats not the issue of evolution. Evolution says species evolved from a completely different form into a brand new species.



Do you believe in the electrons flowing through your computer, encoding information that I can see miles away? Can you see them?

This is just like asking can I see the wind? Of course you can't. But you can experiment with, feel and SEE the effects of wind. Can't do that with evolution.



I'm not scoffing anything (well sometimes I scoff at IceAgeCivilizations, but he's just a man), I'm offering an explanation, perhaps an elaboration of the tales of old. Note that while the passage above seems to encourage one to seek the kingdom of heaven within, I don't think it really applies to evolutionary science. Note:

Pro 1:22 How long, you simple ones, will foolish things be dear to you? and pride a delight to the haters of authority? how long will the foolish go on hating knowledge?

Pro 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the start of knowledge: but the foolish have no use for wisdom and teaching.

Pro 10:13 In the lips of him who has knowledge wisdom is seen; but a rod is ready for the back of him who is without sense.

Pro 12:1 A lover of training is a lover of knowledge; but a hater of teaching is like a beast.


Wisdom and teaching is the understanding of God's character in these verses. How much do we know about the things of God?


But this one is the reason I think you chose not to keep an open mind and heed the words of scientific knowledge:

Ecc 1:18 Because in much wisdom is much grief, and increase of knowledge is increase of sorrow.

There is comfort in your beliefs.

When God says that we will face persecution and even death for having our beliefs--you think that is comfort? Christ himself was murdered by the world for this so called "comfort." What Bible have you gotten this information from? There is comfort, yes, knowing that we will be rewarded if we "fight the good fight"--which is righteousness. The Bible says that sinners who do not repent will go to hell. That's comfort?

I feel sorry for you because you seem to believe that science will determine the destiny of our souls. No matter how hard we study science no one will be able to predict our physical and mental state of mind after we die. And that is the fact. We will die and I am not going to leave it up to myself to determine what happens. I will trust the Bible.

Are you going to trust yourself with your very existence? or Are you going to trust evolution's approach--to consume and enjoy and then we become nothing? I hope you please ask God to reveal Himself to you. Try it right now. Will it hurt you?

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;" Acts 17:26-27

w1z4rd
03-23-07, 05:56 AM
What country(s) or education system(s) is pushing out people like IAC and JimHR?.... I really want to know (reading what they write makes me feel better about the quality of my 3rd world education).

I really do not mind that people disbelieve in Evolution. It allows countries like Zimbabwe to catch up and overtake a lot of first world people educationally. And the funny thing, is the dumb people don't even realize this :D

IceAgeCivilizations
03-23-07, 06:07 AM
I went to public school and then to Dartmouth College in the U.S.

The Devil Inside
03-23-07, 07:11 AM
As for the other religions, no other religion proclaims a risen Savior. And the authority of the Bible must be supreme for it to be truth--which it is in all the world.

wrong.
mithraism does.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-23-07, 07:13 AM
Who was Mithra, any relation to Mothra?

nietzschefan
03-23-07, 07:59 AM
Mithras was a sun god i think. Celebrated on Dec 25th in ancient Rome.

Anyways. You'd be surprised how "educated", so-called educated people in North America are.

I told a co-worker oil nowdays comes largely from the mass extinction of dinosaurs at the 65 MYA event. Somehow the conversation was struck up at local hockey arena that night and she told some other parents(if you know how expensive hockey is you know only well-paid families can afford it) and they LAUGHED at her.

She was a bit ticked at me the next day that I played a pretty good joke on her. I just shook my head in dismay. Barbarians at the gate my friends, barbarians at the gate...

PsychoticEpisode
03-23-07, 08:04 AM
It is a prophecy of the prophets who lived thousands of years ago. They were prophesizing that people in the future would turn away from the belief that God created the heavens and the earth with age and "heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth."


Maybe they were talking about you. Turning your ears from the truth may mean stop believing in this crap(religion) and get with the program. Its a matter of interpretation. Frankly that quote is ambiguous at best.

Back then as it is today, people knew that progress and scientific discovery would prove a lot of their words wrong. I can make the exact same prediction today, remove some of the ambiguity, and it will hold up for all as long as humans exist. There is nothing psychic about it. It is a common sensical realization with inevitability attached. Its no prophesy.

NDS
03-23-07, 08:57 AM
So the viruses today are supposedly morphing into new creatures?

IAC if you google eukaryote or cell evolution you will learn about evolution.

Clearly you have very little knowledge on the overall subject of evolution.

Microbes combined and developed into cells. Read the link below to learn:

http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm

IceAgeCivilizations
03-23-07, 08:58 AM
So what did viruses supposedly morph into?

NDS
03-23-07, 09:23 AM
So what did viruses supposedly morph into?


"A virus is a microscopic particle (ranging in size from 20 - 300 nm) that can infect the cells of a biological organism. Viruses can replicate themselves only by infecting a host cell. They therefore cannot reproduce on their own. At the most basic level, viruses consist of genetic material contained within a protective protein coat called a capsid."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

See IAC, viruses cannot reproduce on their own. So they didn't evolve into anything. Viruses came into existence after the evolution of the Eukaryote cell (human cells) since viruses are dependant on these cells as well as bacteria as a host cell in order to survive.

Again, your lack of research shows how ignorant your question about viruses was, and how ignorant you are on the subject of biology and evolution.

Medicine*Woman
03-23-07, 09:24 AM
Hey M*W!!

Thanks for replying! I know that I didn’t really address all the questions you posted but I would be a liar if I said that I knew all the answers from Genesis. It would take more that a lifetime to learn all the truths of Scripture this is why it never gets old in a person’s lifetime. I guess I am just wondering which of those questions hinders you from risking the destiny of your soul?

*************
M*W: Well, I'll forgive you for not being able to answer all my questions. Since you are new to this forum, I was hoping the new kid on the block could answer some of my questions. The regular christians here don't have the answers. There are no specific questions I have that would impact the destiny of my soul. Being a medical person, I tend to interpret the 'soul' as bioelectric energy. At least that can be tested and measured.


I am sure of the Bible because I live my life according to it. It is the Book of Life. Is there any other book you want to live your life by? And it is interesting to know that the Bible informs us of every important aspect of life. This is what God intended. He gave us the Bible to have "light" in the world. What evidence have you personally discovered that disproves it? I mean life attests to it truths. I don't believe it because I was raised that way (my life is very different now from when I grew up). I believe it because I chose to--as the Bible even says: "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15

*************
M*W: If I were to say, "I'm sure of Edith Hamilton's Mythology, because I live my life according to it," that's what the gods intended...". There are truths to be found there, too!


I definitely am not all-knowing--especially when it comes to matters of life after death. Why not believe the historical accounts written by the 40 men, who spoke 3 different languages, lived on 3 different continents, over a period of 1500 years, with perfect agreement? The fact is I am not going to trust myself with such an important decision as the destiny of my soul. God formed us in the womb and our soul was created.

*************
M*W: I'm very interested in the historical accounts of the bible. I had no idea that it took all of 1500 years to write the bible, but I am confused by the bible being written with 'perfect agreement." There seems to be some debate on this forum that there is no perfect agreement to be found in scripture. Can you clarify why the bible contradicts itself, especially where 'historical' data is concerned?


I'd rather be a believer than a doubter. Its not gonna hurt you to believe. Its better to believe than to doubt.

*************
M*W: In some circles, believing a lie would be harmful to one's soul. I'll use Jim Jones as an example. Believing killed all those people in Guyana. They were bible believers. They prayed all day everyday, and where did it get them? Dead.


The Bible has to be either all true, or not true at all. If only some parts are true, how could I choose which parts those were?

*************
M*W: That is a very logical assumption, and I believe you are right about this. Take Jesus' genealogy for instance. There are discrepancies between the gospel accounts. What happened to Jesus' body? Was the ever put in the tomb? Was he put in the tomb and taken out without anyone seeing him? Was the tomb just a decoy? That's always confused me. And this whole son of god thingy is confusing. There's only one son, and it's the sun.


I know that I have already written a lot but I just wanted to add again that in order to fully understand the nature of God you have to read about Him in the Bible. This is why he gave us the Word and why no one on the face of the earth can deny the influence of the Bible. It has been translated into hundreds of languages.

*************
M*W: I just wonder if all those translations are consisent and correct? Yes, I agree, the bible has had a tremendous amount of influence in the world. I just hope the people who read it will do so with an open mind.


"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

*************
M*W: I don't understand how a god could promise everlasting life and then end it all. Is there some kind of control issue going on? I'm not too concerned myself about everlasting life. I'm kinda tired of it all right now.

What do you think about Jesus and Mary Magdalen having children? Was Mary Magdalen really the whore they said she was? Why would Jesus mess around with someone like her? All she did was carry that damn jar around. The bible says it was full of special oil, but I don't think it was holy or anything. Do you think that could really have something to do with OPEC and the end times?

I know I have a lot of questions, and I hope you can answer them. There are many of us on sciforums who want to know the truth.

NDS
03-23-07, 09:31 AM
"I once lost six months of work because a bacterum evolved a new protein, and I didn't catch it immediately."

- An advanced biologist

See IAC, viruses didn't evolve, bacteria did. In fact, paleontologists have found ancient fossils of bacteria from millions of years ago when the Cambrian era started. Then, as the rocks the fossils are in get younger and younger more advanced species of animals are found.

This is called faunal succession.

NDS
03-23-07, 09:41 AM
The problem with many people who are not informed about evolution is that they all think that "Dinosaurs" existed independent of everything else, were wiped out, then suddenly "humans" and "other animals" existed.

The truth is, humans and all animals are made up of Eukaryotic cells. The very first creatures, as proven from the fossil record, appeared around 545 million years ago. There were many types of creatures such as fish which led up to the dinosaur.

PsychoticEpisode
03-23-07, 09:55 AM
I think when it comes right down to it, Noah's Ark is an attempt to explain the discovery of fossils. From seashells on a mountaintop to dragon bones found by any means. I don't think with religion at that time being the authority on everything that anyone was going to come up with the theory of evolution. Again, common sense prevailed at that time, but its time to move on and start using it again.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-23-07, 10:24 AM
So NDS, what then do viruses have to do with your Darwinian morphing?

nova900
03-23-07, 10:27 AM
No matter how hard we study science no one will be able to predict our physical and mental state of mind after we die. And that is the fact. We will die and I am not going to leave it up to myself to determine what happens. I will trust the Bible.


Unless you consider many reports of near death experiences.
Anyways, Jim, perhaps you might find this site of interest. The site owner claims to be christian and much of his site of course comes from that perspective.

http://www.near-death.com/

SnakeLord
03-23-07, 11:24 AM
It is still a virus, no morphing into a new kind of creature, right?

But wait IAC, what if we use your argument and claim it's a "hyper mutt virus"? We can then follow the rest of your method, (refusing to explain what the hell a "hyper mutt" is while believing that this hyper mutt can give birth to several hundred different species within a very short period of time).


They are universal truths that apply to everyone who has ever existed. Rich or poor, man or woman, ugly or pretty, smart or dumb, young or old, black or white--need I continue?

Kindly cite some examles of these "universal truths"

IceAgeCivilizations
03-23-07, 11:27 AM
Still would have been a virus, right?

PsychoticEpisode
03-23-07, 12:04 PM
I think IAC means it doesn't become a giraffe or something other than a virus just as his pair of cats become other cats not alligators. His main contention is that God made all the critters in the world and after the flood a temporary but quick evolutionary era took place. Diversity was established post flood. Everything that crept was represented by one species of creature before the flood. One dog group, one cat group and so on down the line. Am I correct so far IAC?

PsychoticEpisode
03-23-07, 12:09 PM
I've edited the animal family groups from my original post. I don't think anyone can deny mammals, reptiles , amphibians etc. existed or am I wrong on that?

w1z4rd
03-23-07, 12:12 PM
The Atheist's Wager: "You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."

PsychoticEpisode
03-23-07, 03:44 PM
Noah had 120 years to build it with his three sons.

I heard a 100 tops, but who's counting. What part of the ark was completed first? 100 year old timber kind of loses its strength after a while. I'm staying on deck.

I believe the ark also had an altar for sacrificing animals, clean ones I think. I can never remember which ones are clean or unclean. Anyways the number of extra animals are noted somewhere in Genesis. I believe 5 or 7 critters but it might be 2 plus 7 for sacrificing. I guess if your not the selected pair it doesn't matter because you're going to roast to appease God, as if killing 99.999% of the world's creatures wasn't enough to keep Him happy. With all that rain I'm sure they had fun keeping the fires stoked let alone lighting them.

Poor Noah, as if committing 100 years to build a boat wasn't enough, he still had to build an altar. Not sure what God's priorities were, kill the world, build a boat, save a few good men or make sure the sacrifices get done. Do you think the animal sacrifices held more or equal status as compared to killing and saving them. Isn't it a bit ironic that the same God is asking Noah to save animals yet bring some extras along to be killed.

Wow!! What a fucking nightmare for that crew! Unbelievable. Between keeping countless animals alive they had to cut some up under extremely bad conditions.

spidergoat
03-23-07, 04:28 PM
JimHR,

You said: Why we can't see species evolving today?
I said: In fact we do.
You said: We can see one species evolve into another!?!

That was not your original question, we can see species evolve. But it is true anyway, we have observed a species being formed in the lab. The definition of species is a human one, not an absolute scientific rule. The definition of a species is: a set of living things with similar characteristics that do not naturally reproduce with living things outside this set. Scientists have bred fruitflies until they formed a type that could no longer mate with their original population, thus by the definition of species, they became a new species.


Why should I believe evolution if every time a species reproduces--it is still the same kind?
Because it happens gradually. We know this because of fossils. They are found in distinct layers corresponding to the time period they died. In older layers, there are no modern species whatsoever.


They have stood the test of time. They are universal truths that apply to everyone who has ever existed.
The bible contains some good advice about living, but it also points out the value of learning, and contains descriptions about the origins of life and Earth that are not literally true.


Well no wonder its hard for some to understand the end product. You don't know the source! Know the source then the end product will be understood. Come on man!
I know better than you think. Any assertion of fact can be considered independently of the source. As Galileo stated, if the bible seems to contradict scientific truth, it must be our interpretation of the bible that is incorrect.

If asked to consider the meaning of certain bible passages, I would suggest that they be understood in the context of the culture in which they were written. Also, I find the statements of Jesus to be of a different quality as the rest of the bible, containing some profound truths that unfortunately few realize, none of which contradicts evolution.


Evolution says species evolved from a completely different form into a brand new species.
That's just a part of it. Evolution describes how living things change over time. If a breeding population is isolated from the rest, it changes in ways that do not allow it to breed anymore, making it a new species. Eventually, it will change enough that it no longer resembles it's original species.


This is just like asking can I see the wind? Of course you can't. But you can experiment with, feel and SEE the effects of wind. Can't do that with evolution.
Yes, you can. You can see the effects in the fossil record. You can experiment with natural selection.


Wisdom and teaching is the understanding of God's character in these verses.
No, it says that's just the beginning. Why do you hate knowledge?


I feel sorry for you because you seem to believe that science will determine the destiny of our souls.
I don't think there is such a thing as a soul.


No matter how hard we study science no one will be able to predict our physical and mental state of mind after we die.
Not true. Science predicts that the mind is the product of the brain, which when dead, no longer functions. Death is the end. That is why you seek comfort in a limited and traditional interpretation of the bible, because you fear death. This was a comfort even to those Christians who were persecuted and tortured, but knowledge of our true origins isn't comfortable. It reveals that we are special, but only one of billions of species of animals that lived and died out on this planet, with no purpose or plan, alone in a vast uncaring universe.


Are you going to trust evolution's approach--to consume and enjoy and then we become nothing?
Evolution is a description of how life forms change. My personal purpose is up to me. I enjoy the freedom of that.


I hope you please ask God to reveal Himself to you. Try it right now. Will it hurt you?I don't think of God like that. In this context what you ask makes no sense, like dehydrated water. God is inseparable from me and you and everything. It is not a literal personality. Any conception I could have of God would be merely a symbol. Jesus asked us to realize the kingdom of heaven, which is all around, but most do not see it. Paradise is here and now, let them that have eyes see. The God you describe is no more than a pagan idol in comparison.

NDS
03-23-07, 05:50 PM
Spidergoat, do you believe DNA Proteins can evolve, which means that an entirely new species can be formed over time through a process of altering or adding information to dna, not subracting it?

JimHR
03-23-07, 07:11 PM
wrong.
mithraism does.

Hey the DevilInside!! (what made you decide that name by the way?)

Thanks for responding. Well Mithraism is not a current religion--it died out. The truth will not die out. Jesus Christ is changing lives today as he has throughout history. That's pretty amazing--don't you think? So there is no religion today that professes a risen Savior.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." -Jesus Christ, Matthew 24:35

What's more--their religion is a secret order. Would that be fair of God to be totally inclusive of certain people? Plus they don't have the authority of the Bible.

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:4

Just a reminder that if you really want to know the answers to these questions they are in the Bible but you have to read it in context. Ask God to show you. Will it really hurt you? Please be open minded.

BTW have you ever tried following the teachings of the Bible? That is what I do. Please let me know.

spidergoat
03-23-07, 08:30 PM
Spidergoat, do you believe DNA Proteins can evolve, which means that an entirely new species can be formed over time through a process of altering or adding information to dna, not subracting it?

I think only a relatively small percentage of change in the DNA sequence can and does often result in new species.

Satyr
03-23-07, 08:44 PM
What if there were only a few animals and Noah inseminated them with his own seed to create all the species?

spidergoat
03-23-07, 08:44 PM
It was a supernatural event, why try to invent naturalistic explanations, anyway?

JimHR
03-24-07, 04:44 AM
JimHR.

Where did you get your degree in advanced palentology, genetics, etc.?

The point is, you are far from being an expert on anything related to advanced evolution (as am I). And clearly you have not done much of any research into the issue of evolution. You simply rationalize everything to support "The Bible."

We don't see "new" species being formed today because that takes literally millions of years. Humans have only been around for about 10 thousand. It's pretty clear why we haven't seen an entirely new species develop.

The Bible says each will reproduce after their kind because that is exactly what happens. Only dogs and reproduce with other dog type creatures. Only cats with cats. This in no way excludes the idea of "Darwinian Evolution."

Hey what's up NDS? I appreciate your responses. Well so what you are saying is that evolution is a theory of history and not science. We don't see "new" species because it happened in the past. Part of the scientific method is observation, right? It's interesting you note that humans have been around for about 10 thousand years--that's about as long as the Bible teaches.

Should an undeniable fact be discovered only with an advanced degree?


Each dinosaur fossil actually is a "transitional link" since one dino led to another, which led to another, and on and on. Mammals, by the way, were around during the reign of dinosaurs. In fact, we have dug up fossils which represent creatures which are part mammal, part reptile from the dino era. There is your "transitional link." If you had done the research, instead of using the Bible as your only source of scientific data, then you would have realized this.

Ok well please tell me the creatures you are talking about. But still you have not observed this transition taking place and those creatures could simply be a species that always was and never changed.

So you find a couple of bones out of the millions of supposed transitions and that's enough evidence? What about the birds and whales and insects? And more importantly humans? Where are our supposed millions of transitions? Do you know how complex the human is? We have organs that cannot function without the other. We need a brain, a heart, lungs, intestines, blood, bones... Undoubtedly we are complex. Not only that we love, hate, seek, design, create. To think that we evolved from one single microorganism--from dead matter by the way--into the vibrant living creatures we are now is pretty complex. How much have we evolved in this generation of ours? And just look at how much evidence we've left behind.

"all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Evolution is simply an attempt to take God out of the public schools.

And even if you could explain how life began, how can your "science" provide observable, empirical and measurable evidence for what does or does not happen after death?

JimHR
03-24-07, 04:47 AM
*************
M*W: Well, I'll forgive you for not being able to answer all my questions.

Hey M*W!! I will answer your questions, I love people who are open and honest as you sound--but I have been a little busy please give me a day or two k?

Medicine*Woman
03-24-07, 05:02 AM
Hey M*W!! I will answer your questions, I love people who are open and honest as you sound--but I have been a little busy please give me a day or two k?

*************
M*W: Sure, I'll give you all the time you need. After all, it's been 2,000 years since the lies began! I can wait a few more days!

PsychoticEpisode
03-24-07, 08:31 AM
First off, the bible is not evidence. I suppose religion is hoping science will prove the dinosaurs died in the flood, ironic as that sounds. Right now God for some unknown reason is making it look like the flood was 65 million years ago and all the efforts of some of the most gifted minds in history are a total waste. The lord giveth and taketh away. Why?

IceAgeCivilizations
03-24-07, 08:47 AM
The Bible is far and away the most encompassing and long running account of ancient history, it was the primary roadmap for archaeology in the M.E. in the 1800's and 1900's, so to say that it's not evidence is lunacy.

And the geologic record bespeaks the Deluge, to the objective geologist.

SnakeLord
03-24-07, 09:32 AM
it was the primary roadmap for archaeology in the M.E. in the 1800's and 1900's, so to say that it's not evidence is lunacy.


It certainly was. Indeed things were dated based upon the belief that the world was only a few thousand years old.. Luckily man progressed beyond that and realised the error in doing what he had been doing.

So, what exactly was your point?


And the geologic record bespeaks the Deluge, to the objective geologist.

I'm afraid not. You're just telling yourself that to make your own beliefs more credible in your own mind.

PsychoticEpisode
03-24-07, 09:35 AM
The Bible is far and away the most encompassing and long running account of ancient history, it was the primary roadmap for archaeology in the M.E. in the 1800's and 1900's, so to say that it's not evidence is lunacy.

And the geologic record bespeaks the Deluge, to the objective geologist.

Sorry, I was referring to creation. Undoubtedly yes, it provides clues to antiquity and history. It is not the only account.

Many geologists agree that floods have occurred in the past. Life went on.

NDS
03-24-07, 09:56 AM
Well so what you are saying is that evolution is a theory of history and not science.

Gravity is a theory too, but I'm sure you believe in that.


We have organs that cannot function without the other. We need a brain, a heart, lungs, intestines, blood, bones... Undoubtedly we are complex.

LOL. Yeah, so does your basic fruit fly. Can a fly live if someone destroys its brain or heart?


Not only that we love, hate, seek, design, create. To think that we evolved from one single microorganism--from dead matter by the way--into the vibrant living creatures we are now is pretty complex.

First off, the human body (not the spirit) is dead matter in itself. We are made up of a sequence of atoms. Our brains run on electricity.

Secondly, what do you call it when a male and female bird has sex, has kids, and then raises them together? What do you call it when a mother and father animal protects their children fiercly and would die for them? Is this love?

Would humans love their babies if they weren't so cute?


Evolution is simply an attempt to take God out of the public schools.

Again, there is too much evidence for it to just throw it out the window so we can keep the "sanctity" of religion in our schools. By the way, ever hear of separation of Church and State? It's called freedom of religion. American law isn't based on God, it's based on logic and self-interest. Abortion is legal because no knows for sure if a God exists, or cares about abortion.


And even if you could explain how life began, how can your "science" provide observable, empirical and measurable evidence for what does or does not happen after death?

Science is a way of describing only the material world around us, including biology, astronomy, etc.

NDS
03-24-07, 10:27 AM
Ok well please tell me the creatures you are talking about. But still you have not observed this transition taking place and those creatures could simply be a species that always was and never changed.

If you actually do the research yourself you will figure it out. There is a clear link between dinos and birds. It is extremely clear. There were ostrich type dinos, for example, which existed during the dino age.


So you find a couple of bones out of the millions of supposed transitions and that's enough evidence? What about the birds and whales and insects? And more importantly humans? Where are our supposed millions of transitions?

We didn't even know about any extinct creatures like ancient mollusks, ancient dinos, etc. until about the 1830's. We have found literally thousands of fossils, and described literally thousands of extinct creatures ranging from mammals, to reptiles, to birds, etc. since then.

We have already found hundreds of fossils showing the clear links between early humans and modern humans.

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/human.html

Give it another hundred years to find more fossils and we may find "every" link. The only reason we haven't yet is because of the time factor. We only started searching 190 years ago.

NDS
03-24-07, 11:14 AM
Here's a few examples of bird-dino connection evidence I just ripped off of wiki:

'Feathered dinosaurs are regarded by many paleontologists as transitional fossils between birds and dinosaurs (see Dinosaur-bird connection). It was already well known that ancient birds such as Archaeopteryx had many saurian characteristics, such as claws on their 'fingers' and teeth. For many years it had been theorized that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. In the late 1990s, discoveries of feathered dinosaurs provided conclusive evidence of the connection, though the genealogical details are still incomplete."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

"The current scientific consensus holds that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict phylogenetic definition of a clade as all descendants of a single last common ancestor, modern birds are dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur-bird_connection

If dinosaurs aren't extinct, then the Christian theory that dinosaur fossils are satan's creation is also extinct.

JimHR, look up dinosaur bird connection, feathered dinosaurs, and things like that on Google and you will be enlightened.

SnakeLord
03-24-07, 12:02 PM
JimHR, look up dinosaur bird connection, feathered dinosaurs, and things like that on Google and you will be enlightened.

That is... if you want to be. Ultimately we must all make a choice.

NDS
03-24-07, 01:01 PM
And the geologic record bespeaks the Deluge, to the objective geologist.

Ice, everyone here knows you have no clue what you are talking about. You make up things based on your own skewed view of reality, not based on evidence from experienced scientists but based on your own biased rationalizations.

You never provide sources for your claims because you make all of your claims up. It's that simple.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-24-07, 02:55 PM
I've made many references, and sedimentary means layed down in water, hello?

NDS
03-24-07, 03:45 PM
I've made many references

LOL.


sedimentary means layed down in water, hello?

Water? No fucking kidding. Lakes, rivers, etc. Not global floods.

Oh, by the way, sedimentary rocks CAN NOT be formed in 40 days and 40 nights, genius.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-24-07, 03:49 PM
Go refute over at the "sedimentary" thread in earth science.

NDS
03-24-07, 04:11 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Canyon_midday.jpg/800px-Canyon_midday.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canyon_midday.jpg


See that picture? That is the Grand Canyon. It was formed by millions of years of erosion from the colorado river which is in the picture.

40 days of flooding, and then a sudden "wind" which dried up all the water wouldn't be enough to form even one inch of a sediment layer. The flood waters would have had to have been there millions of years.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-24-07, 04:17 PM
Two huge lakes broke through to gouge that canyon which is over 50x too wide for its current flow.

NDS
03-24-07, 04:31 PM
Two huge lakes broke through to gouge that canyon which is over 50x too wide for its current flow.

Or a gigantic glacier cut into it during glacial recession, which seems extremely more plausible than "two huge lakes which broke through the ground." LOL. Good one.

By the way, rivers change currents over time and end up covering a large area.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-24-07, 04:36 PM
The evidence for the two huge lakes is there on the hillsides, there is no evidence of glaciation, you are very ignorant of the geology of this area, and of geology in general, but that's ok, maybe you'll learn some new stuff.

IceAgeCivilizations
03-24-07, 04:37 PM
A river would keep cutting down, not out, so the canyon should be about 50 times thinner at the top.

Photizo
03-24-07, 04:38 PM
See that picture? That is the Grand Canyon. It was formed by millions of years of erosion from the colorado river which is in the picture.

40 days of flooding, and then a sudden "wind" which dried up all the water wouldn't be enough to form even one inch of a sediment layer. The flood waters would have had to have been there millions of years.

Alas, there exists Someone more Powerful than you.

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God...

Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God...

For nothing is impossible with God.

For example:

"Roll the stone aside," Jesus told them. But Martha, the dead man's sister, said, "Lord, by now the smell will be terrible because he has been dead for four days."

Jesus responded, "Didn't I tell you that you will see God's glory if you believe?"

So they rolled the stone aside.

...Then Jesus shouted, "Lazarus, come out!" And Lazarus came out, bound in graveclothes, his face wrapped in a headcloth. Jesus told them, "Unwrap him and let him go!"

Many of the people who were with Mary believed in Jesus when they saw this happen.

Or this:

The crowd was amazed! Those who hadn't been able to speak were talking, the crippled were made well, the lame were walking around, and those who had been blind could see again! And they praised the God of Israel.

Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I feel sorry for these people. They have been here with me for three days, and they have nothing left to eat. I don't want to send them away hungry, or they will faint along the road."

The disciples replied, "And where would we get enough food out here in the wilderness for all of them to eat?"

Jesus asked, "How many loaves of bread do you have?" They replied, "Seven, and a few small fish." So Jesus told all the people to sit down on the ground.

Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, thanked God for them, broke them into pieces, and gave them to the disciples, who distributed the food to the crowd.

They all ate until they were full, and when the scraps were picked up, there were seven large baskets of food left over!

He said If a man would follow Him then let him deny himself...including that state of denial manifested by dependence upon ones inabilities...

NDS
03-24-07, 04:44 PM
Hey Photizo, can you direct me to the verse where Moses prophesizes the coming of the Son of God? I mean, after all, Moses "wrote of him," right?

Thanks.

Photizo
03-24-07, 05:19 PM
Hey Photizo, can you direct me to the verse where Moses prophesizes the coming of the Son of God? I mean, after all, Moses "wrote of him," right?

Thanks.

There are many verses in the Penteteuch where Moses wrote about the coming of the Son of God, here are a few: Genesis 3:15...Genesis 49:10...Numbers 24:17...Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19.

NDS
03-24-07, 05:39 PM
Numbers 24:17
Num 24:17
17 "I see Him, but not now;
I behold Him, but not near;
a Star shall come out of Jacob;
a Scepter shall rise out of Israel,
And batter the brow of Moab,
And destroy all the sons of tumul
NKJV


Good one.

Photizo
03-24-07, 06:19 PM
Numbers 24:17
Num 24:17
17 "I see Him, but not now;
I behold Him, but not near;
a Star shall come out of Jacob;
a Scepter shall rise out of Israel,
And batter the brow of Moab,
And destroy all the sons of tumul
NKJV


Good one.

Yep.

NDS
03-24-07, 10:09 PM
Num 24:17
17 "I see Him, but not now;
I behold Him, but not near;
a Star shall come out of Jacob;
a Scepter shall rise out of Israel,
And batter the brow of Moab,
And destroy all the sons of tumult.
NKJV

"Although the writer -or editor- of the book of Numbers seems to have had king Josiah in mind when he composed these lines, from the second century onward, this text was interpreted as a prediction of the coming of the Messiah."

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_11.html

Hmmmmmm, sounds familiar.
__________________________________________________ _______
Deut 18:15

15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren.

Wow, for a minute there I thought Moses was talking about Mohammad. Notice that he uses the word "Prophet," to describe this person. Not "Son of God," not "Messiah."

Photizo, was Jesus just another "Prophet" like the Quran says and like Moses describes him as being?

__________________________________________________ _
Gen 49:9-12

9 Judah is a lion's whelp;
From the prey, my son, you have gone up.
He[B] bows down, he lies down as a lion;
And as a lion, who shall rouse him?

Notice here how the "he" and "him" are referring to Judah. Jacob here starts referring to Judah with the pronouns "he" and "him" from this point on.

10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor a lawgiver from between [B]his feet,
Until Shiloh comes;
And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.
11 Binding his donkey to the vine,
And his donkey's colt to the choice vine,
He washed his garments in wine,
And his clothes in the blood of grapes.
12 His eyes are darker than wine,
And his teeth whiter than
NKJV

The he and him are still referring to Judah, not Jesus.

"till he come to Shiloh;" and the LXX Greek, "until that which is his shall come to Shiloh."

While some Christian interpreters believe Gen. 49:10 to be a prophecy of Jesus, some Muslims interpret it as a prophecy of Muhammad, and likewise, some Rastafarians have associated the name with the return of Haile Selassie I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiloh_(Biblical)

Here is the New International Version's translation:

Gen 49:10
10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his.
NIV

Hmmmmmm, sounds like its still talking about Judah to me.



_________________________________________________
Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."


This could be interpeted as meaning anything, and you know it Photizo.

This is what biblical scholar Mathew Henry says of it:

(2.) He is to be for ever looked upon as a venomous noxious creature, and a proper object of hatred and detestation: I will put enmity between thee and the woman. The inferior creatures being made for man, it was a curse upon any of them to be turned against man and man against them; and this is part of the serpent's curse. The serpent is hurtful to man, and often bruises his heel, because it can reach no higher; nay, notice is taken of his biting the horses' heels, Gen 49:17. But man is victorious over the serpent, and bruises his head, that is, gives him a mortal wound, aiming to destroy the whole generation of vipers. It is the effect of this curse upon the serpent that, though that creature is subtle and very dangerous, yet it prevails not (as it would if God gave it commission) to the destruction of mankind.

These 4 verses you have given me do anything but prophesize a "Messiah" or "redeemer of all men." No mention of a "Son of God" is made. No mention of a "Redeemer" or "Saviour" is made.

You're telling me that out of the entire writings of Moses in Genesis-Deuteronomy, no mention of a "saviour," "redeemer," "Messiah," or "Son of God" is made? All you could come up with is four weak verses which in way refer to a "redeemer of all mankind" or a "Son of God?"

Also, last time I checked the "Son of God" was named Jesus, not Shiloh.

Now if Moses had written something like the following, then you may have a case:

Genesis 73:21
And a Messiah shall be born to this world in the coming days. He shall be the only Son of God, and shall die for the sins of all mankind. This man will die on the tree in Gethsemane.

Now that would be a prophesy. Not some BS which could clearly be interpreted as anything.

NDS
03-24-07, 10:38 PM
Two huge lakes broke through to gouge that canyon which is over 50x too wide for its current flow.

And how long did this take? How many years? Where are these lakes now?

The many layers of Sedimentary Rock in the Grand Canyon were definetly not formed by a huge flood or "two huge lakes." Here's how the many layers of sediment in the Grand Canyon were really formed:

"The sediments that covered the roots of these ancient mountains were deposited by a series of advancing and retreating ocean coast lines. As the climate of our planet warms and cools the median sea level of the planet rises and falls due to the melting and freezing of the polar caps. When the sea level rises, land areas which are close to the coast and relatively low in altitude are sometimes submerged. This was the case with the land area of the Grand Canyon and is why so many different sedimentary rock layers exist. Each of these was formed by a different period in which the ocean moved in and covered the land, stayed for a while, and then retreated again. Limestone deposits are created when the ocean moves in and slates, shales and mudstone deposits are created when the ocean moves out and the area is covered by silts washing into the retreating ocean."

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm#how

There's a nice lesson in geology for you there, Ice. I hope you learned something.

Not to mention, spidergoat said this:

"IceAgeCivilizations,

Your assumption seems to be that there must have been a worldwide flood, due to the presence of sedimentary rock all around the world.

I have a different explanation. As you say, rivers bring sediment from the continents to the bottom of the oceans, where they form layers. If there was one worldwide flood, there would be one layer of sediment evenly spread around the planet. Even though it might have formed distinct bands as it settled out, these characteristics would be about the same wherever we found this layer. There is no evidence for such a layer.

Instead, we find many different kinds of sediment, depending on where it eroded from. Some places accumulate chalk.

The layers in the grand canyon are not uniform, as if formed from the same stuff, there are sometimes gaps of millions of years in successive layers. This is because another layer did form, was eroded away over millions of years, and another formed on top of that.

Also, a worldwide flood would have floated off the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. They could not have reformed in such a short time. The evidence is in the seasonal layers of ice and bubbles which go back more than 160,000 years.

To prove a global flood could have happened, you need a theory that allows two or more layers in the ice to form each year, a process that is not occurring in modern times."

Photizo
03-24-07, 11:42 PM
...These 4 verses you have given me do anything but prophesize a "Messiah" or "redeemer of all men." No mention of a "Son of God" is made. No mention of a "Redeemer" or "Saviour" is made.

You're telling me that out of the entire writings of Moses in Genesis-Deuteronomy, no mention of a "saviour," "redeemer," "Messiah," or "Son of God" is made? All you could come up with is four weak verses which in way refer to a "redeemer of all mankind" or a "Son of God?"

Also, last time I checked the "Son of God" was named Jesus, not Shiloh.

By all means, 'interpret' those passages any way you like...see them in whatever way makes you comfortable and at peace with yourself...but remember, being in denial requires constant vigilance...

Nutter
03-25-07, 04:20 AM
__________________________________________________ _______
Deut 18:15

15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren.

Wow, for a minute there I thought Moses was talking about Mohammad. Notice that he uses the word "Prophet," to describe this person. Not "Son of God," not "Messiah."

Photizo, was Jesus just another "Prophet" like the Quran says and like Moses describes him as being?




The Quran is wrong concerning this issue. Deuteronomy 18:15 is not a reference to Mohammed.

The alert reader will note that Deu. 18:15 says " ... from your brethren" i.e., an Israelite, not a descendant of Ishmael.

Sock puppet path
03-25-07, 04:55 AM
By all means, 'interpret' those passages any way you like...see them in whatever way makes you comfortable and at peace with yourself...but remember, being in denial requires constant vigilance...

So, how do you manage to maintain your constant vigilance photizo?

w1z4rd
03-25-07, 05:26 AM
How do we know Moses wrote Genisis?