Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[AdamsDream]

And how did you divine the number of animals on the Ark as 40,000? There is nothing in the Bible to indicate how many animals were in the Ark. Where did your number come from?
Yes, it rained heavily for 40 days, which would certainly have been a difficult period for all on board the ark. The Bible simply does not give details about life aboard the Ark. Speculating on how waste would be removed is simply that, 'wasteful' speculation.
As to the shape of the Ark, let's see what the Bible itself says: "Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree. You will make compartments in the ark, and you must cover it inside and outside with tar.And this is how you will make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its height. You will make a tso′har [roof; or, window] for the ark, and you will complete it to the extent of a cubit upward, and the entrance of the ark you will put in its side; you will make it with a lower [story], a second [story] and a third [story]." (Genesis 6:14-16)
No mention of a bow, nor keel, rudder, or sail. The same word is later used to describe the basket Moses was placed in as a baby. (Exodus 2:3)
I believe the last days are marked by more then a single prophecy. The Bible presents detailed descriptions of what would occur during the last days. The prophecy about ridiculers is just one facet of the evidence we are living in the time of the end for this wicked system of things.

How I get to 40.000? From creationist writers. The most arduous of them don't seem to get at a number of less than 17.000 'kinds'. Most try 20.000 to 25.000. Which is a great feat because it asks for bringing together allmost totally unrelated species. So I took a low number as a minimum not even the most fundamentalistic creationist would contest.
But like most creationists you suddenly seem to forget he needed a female and a male. Which brings us to 40.000 to 50.000 minimum.

There was no need to quote the biblical text, I know it. And if you read it again you'll see it doesn't describe a coffin shape. I just suppose -as most creationist specialists do- that Noah was not a complete idiot so when his god asked him to make a boat, he made a boat. His god didn't mention the obvious. You will allso notice that the biblical text makes no mention of a toilet or a bed to sleep in. Do you think then that they all did it on the floor they were sleeping on? And do you allso think a basket was a square box?

About the last days, don't you know your history? Numerous times those last days from the bible have been used and quoted to warn the sinners and to prophecy that the world was very near the end of times and that 'all the signs were there'. It was so in the first century's, it was so when the year 1.000 came near, ... I think historians will provide you with at least a hundredth 'last days'. It's becoming a bit ridiculous.

Allso, you should consider this:
To most people on this world (those who have heard of it) and certainly to allmost every scientist creationism is considered as an unimportant religious cult of fundamentalists, with local importance in parts of the USA. Now I'm not saying that it is, just how it is perceived around the world. If you would ask about creationism in Europe as a whole you'ld have difficulty in finding people who ever heard about it.
The same is probably true in the greater part of Asia: ask someone in China or India: they don't know, don't bother, don't ridicule.

So the ridiculing bit sounds like something that's fed to young creationists to inspire unity against a common malevolent enemy.
Something you don't know you can't ridicule.

 

[rusra02]

My, my, lieing about dating again, eh? Is this what religion does to the intellect?

Fortunately for truth seekers, and unfortunately for those who trie to hide the truth, anyone with access to a Google search can see for themselves the problems inherent in scientific dating.

 

[rusra02]

How I get to 40.000? From creationist writers. The most arduous of them don't seem to get at a number of less than 17.000 'kinds'. Most try 20.000 to 25.000. Which is a great feat because it asks for bringing together allmost totally unrelated species. So I took a low number as a minimum not even the most fundamentalistic creationist would contest.
But like most creationists you suddenly seem to forget he needed a female and a male. Which brings us to 40.000 to 50.000 minimum.

There was no need to quote the biblical text, I know it. And if you read it again you'll see it doesn't describe a coffin shape. I just suppose -as most creationist specialists do- that Noah was not a complete idiot so when his god asked him to make a boat, he made a boat. His god didn't mention the obvious. You will allso notice that the biblical text makes no mention of a toilet or a bed to sleep in. Do you think then that they all did it on the floor they were sleeping on? And do you allso think a basket was a square box?

About the last days, don't you know your history? Numerous times those last days from the bible have been used and quoted to warn the sinners and to prophecy that the world was very near the end of times and that 'all the signs were there'. It was so in the first century's, it was so when the year 1.000 came near, ... I think historians will provide you with at least a hundredth 'last days'. It's becoming a bit ridiculous.

Allso, you should consider this:
To most people on this world (those who have heard of it) and certainly to allmost every scientist creationism is considered as an unimportant religious cult of fundamentalists, with local importance in parts of the USA. Now I'm not saying that it is, just how it is perceived around the world. If you would ask about creationism in Europe as a whole you'ld have difficulty in finding people who ever heard about it.
The same is probably true in the greater part of Asia: ask someone in China or India: they don't know, don't bother, don't ridicule.

So the ridiculing bit sounds like something that's fed to young creationists to inspire unity against a common malevolent enemy.
Something you don't know you can't ridicule.

So you did not get the number of kinds of animals in the Ark from the Bible, but from the speculations of others.
It is estimated the ark had about 1,400,000 cubic feet of usable space. Some investigators have said that just 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles could have produced the variety of life on earth today. Whether they are correct or not, there is no reason to believe that 40,000 animals were housed in the Ark. The correct answer is: We don't know how many animals Noah placed into the Ark. The Bible says: "Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive. And as for you, take for yourself every sort of food that is eaten; and you must gather it to yourself, and it must serve as food for you and for them.” (Genesis 6:20,21)
Again, there is nothing in scripture to indicate the Ark was anything other than a rectangular chest.
How the world views people who accept the Bible's creation account should not influence honest truthseekers from searching for the truth, in my opinion. Only 8 people survived the Flood of Noah's day. Those that scoffed at Noah were destroyed, swept away when God's day of judgment arrived. I believe the same thing will occur again in our day. None other than Jesus Christ said that it would. (Matthew 24:37-39)

​

​

 

[camanintx]

You're appealing to Creationist theories about sedimentary deposits? I personally don't subscribe to those theories. As mentioned in other posts, I believe the Flood was a far more catastrophic event than most people seem to think it was, with unique and devastating consequences for the Earth, Earth's climate, and the atmosphere.

Except the Grand Canyon, with it's steep walls and sharp bends, looks nothing like what you would get from a catastrophic flood event. It would look more like the channeled scabland of Eastern Washington.

Channeled Scabland Eastern Washington Ice Age Floods Lake Missoula

 

[outhouse]

Fortunately for truth seekers, and unfortunately for those who trie to hide the truth, anyone with access to a Google search can see for themselves the problems inherent in scientific dating.

what would you ever know about seeking the truth?

all ive seen you do is pervert and avoid it.


there is no debate about the credibility of dating.


there is only a dishonest attempt by some theist to create a problem where there isnt one, due to their theism and refusal of knowledge

 

[rusra02]

what would you ever know about seeking the truth?

all ive seen you do is pervert and avoid it.


there is no debate about the credibility of dating.


there is only a dishonest attempt by some theist to create a problem where there isnt one, due to their theism and refusal of knowledge

Well, it shouldn't bother you if people want to check it out for themselves, should it?

 

[outhouse]

Well, it shouldn't bother you if people want to check it out for themselves, should it?

people are easily midirected by dishonest theist based websites, that prey on the wallets of the faithful.


scientific based websites do not have any issues with dating at all

 

[rusra02]

people are easily midirected by dishonest theist based websites, that prey on the wallets of the faithful.


scientific based websites do not have any issues with dating at all

Sooooo, we don't want people to hear both sides of the issue because "people are easily misdirected by" websites that disagree with the notion that dating is problem free and accurate? And such websites are only interested in getting money out of "the wallets of the faithful" ? Really? So no one should be listened to except the "scientific based websites"? It is that blind dogmatism that is a hallmark of the ToE proponents, in my opinion.

 

[outhouse]

Sooooo, we don't want people to hear both sides of the issue because "people are easily misdirected by" websites that disagree with the notion that dating is problem free and accurate? And such websites are only interested in getting money out of "the wallets of the faithful" ? Really? So no one should be listened to except the "scientific based websites"? It is that blind dogmatism that is a hallmark of the ToE proponents, in my opinion.

NO

and I knew you would take what I said out of context.

there isnt two sides

there is one side that is peer reviewed by professionals and accepted. Theist also are part of this side.


and a minority of theist, not scientist, who are trying to "force" mythology into reality, that does not constitute a side.

 

[crocusj]

So you did not get the number of kinds of animals in the Ark from the Bible, but from the speculations of others.
It is estimated the ark had about 1,400,000 cubic feet of usable space. Some investigators have said that just 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles could have produced the variety of life on earth today. Whether they are correct or not, there is no reason to believe that 40,000 animals were housed in the Ark.

Well then, "some investigators" must surely be proposing evolution (albeit high speed evolution), surely? (and also wrong on a level worse than mere guessing). We are repeatedly regaled by creationists with lists of animals that cannot possibly have evolved (including specific reasoning as to why they cannot have evolved) and therefore they must have been on this ark as a modern species. A common ancestor for an animal that cannot have evolved is clearly impossible, it must be a "kind" on it's own, eg; a beetle and a bombardier beetle must be two different "kinds". If you deny evolutionary speciation but propose an ark then I think you should be obliged to provide the number of animals whether the bible does or not. Seems to me that having an ark without speciation is having your cake and eating it, unless of course, that those animals that according to creationists cannot have evolved actually can.

 

[JustWondering2]

Well then, "some investigators" must surely be proposing evolution (albeit high speed evolution), surely? (and also wrong on a level worse than mere guessing). We are repeatedly regaled by creationists with lists of animals that cannot possibly have evolved (including specific reasoning as to why they cannot have evolved) and therefore they must have been on this ark as a modern species. A common ancestor for an animal that cannot have evolved is clearly impossible, it must be a "kind" on it's own, eg; a beetle and a bombardier beetle must be two different "kinds". If you deny evolutionary speciation but propose an ark then I think you should be obliged to provide the number of animals whether the bible does or not. Seems to me that having an ark without speciation is having your cake and eating it, unless of course, that those animals that according to creationists cannot have evolved actually can.

I like that answer very much and it makes a lot of sense. Too bad some folks think Fred and Barney were real and that the Flintsones was a documentary about their life of dominance over Dinosaurs!!

 

[rusra02]

Well then, "some investigators" must surely be proposing evolution (albeit high speed evolution), surely? (and also wrong on a level worse than mere guessing). We are repeatedly regaled by creationists with lists of animals that cannot possibly have evolved (including specific reasoning as to why they cannot have evolved) and therefore they must have been on this ark as a modern species. A common ancestor for an animal that cannot have evolved is clearly impossible, it must be a "kind" on it's own, eg; a beetle and a bombardier beetle must be two different "kinds". If you deny evolutionary speciation but propose an ark then I think you should be obliged to provide the number of animals whether the bible does or not. Seems to me that having an ark without speciation is having your cake and eating it, unless of course, that those animals that according to creationists cannot have evolved actually can.

What you call evolution others call variety within kinds. All the varieties of canines can apparently interbreed successfully and thus meet the critieria of a Genesis "kind." In other words, no evolution necessary.

 

[averageJOE]

What you call evolution others call variety within kinds. All the varieties of canines can apparently interbreed successfully and thus meet the critieria of a Genesis "kind." In other words, no evolution necessary.

Poor attempt at redefining evolution.

 

[Looncall]

What you call evolution others call variety within kinds. All the varieties of canines can apparently interbreed successfully and thus meet the critieria of a Genesis "kind." In other words, no evolution necessary.

So what prevents further variation so as to create new "kinds"? Please be specific.

 

[johnhanks]

All the varieties of canines can apparently interbreed successfully and thus meet the critieria of a Genesis "kind."

It's hard to get creationists to look beyond cats and dogs, I know, but even you must be aware that mammals make up a minute percentage of animal species - as, come to that, do backboned animals in general. There are about ten times as many species of butterflies and moths as there are vertebrates: how many 'kinds' were on the ark?

 

[crocusj]

What you call evolution others call variety within kinds. All the varieties of canines can apparently interbreed successfully and thus meet the critieria of a Genesis "kind." In other words, no evolution necessary.

This does not answer my point, however. Your "variety within kinds" can only result in animals that can evolve from that kind (I'm being seriously hypothetical here!!!). Are you saying that the creationist scientists who provide us with examples of animals that cannot possibly have evolved are wrong? Are you saying that the bombardier beetle can have evolved from the same common ancestor as the dung beetle?

 

[Agnostic75]

What you call evolution others call variety within kinds. All the varieties of canines can apparently interbreed successfully and thus meet the critieria of a Genesis "kind." In other words, no evolution necessary.

But you do not know enough about evolution to comment on it. You accept intelligent design, but you certainly do not understand it from an entirely scientific perspective. You cannot intelligently discuss evidence that you do not understand, such as Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun.

At any rate, the Bible does not require people to know anything about science before they become Christians, so why are you so interested in discussing evolution?

Some African natives who live in remote jungle regions are Christians, have very little contact with people from the outside world, and know very little about science. Do you believe that it is reasonable for those people to reject evolution even though they know next to nothing about it? Of course you do. However, if they accepted evolution while knowing next to nothing about it, you would certainly object to that. So, as far as you are concerned, the main issue is certainly not science, but that people believe what you want them to believe. If you knew in advance that a person would accept evolution after they studied it a lot, you would prefer that they never studied it at all.

Surely you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to accept bibilical creationism, and the global flood theory.

You most certainly could not give a lecture to a college geology class about global flood geology without reading from someone else's writings, or without memorizing someone else's writings. The same goes for a college physics class about the age of the earth.

Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, you would still not get anywhere. That is primarily because, as one research study showed, 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution, and because the vast majority of people do not know enough about advanced biology to adequately understand it.

 

[rusra02]

So what prevents further variation so as to create new "kinds"? Please be specific.

As I previously mentioned, the ability to successfully breed apparently marks the boundaries of the Biblical "kinds".

 

[rusra02]

This does not answer my point, however. Your "variety within kinds" can only result in animals that can evolve from that kind (I'm being seriously hypothetical here!!!). Are you saying that the creationist scientists who provide us with examples of animals that cannot possibly have evolved are wrong? Are you saying that the bombardier beetle can have evolved from the same common ancestor as the dung beetle?

I'm saying I believe that God created all animals and plants. You are using (or rather, misusing) the word "evolve" to describe the limited variety within a Genesis "Kind." As to which animal species belong to which "kind", we cannot be sure. Can a dung beetle and bombardier beetle breed successfully?

 

[rusra02]

But you do not know enough about evolution to comment on it. You accept intelligent design, but you certainly do not understand it from an entirely scientific perspective. You cannot intelligently discuss evidence that you do not understand, such as Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun.

At any rate, the Bible does not require people to know anything about science before they become Christians, so why are you so interested in discussing evolution?

Some African natives who live in remote jungle regions are Christians, have very little contact with people from the outside world, and know very little about science. Do you believe that it is reasonable for those people to reject evolution even though they know next to nothing about it? Of course you do. However, if they accepted evolution while knowing next to nothing about it, you would certainly object to that. So, as far as you are concerned, the main issue is certainly not science, but that people believe what you want them to believe. If you knew in advance that a person would accept evolution after they studied it a lot, you would prefer that they never studied it at all.

Surely you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to accept bibilical creationism, and the global flood theory.

You most certainly could not give a lecture to a college geology class about global flood geology without reading from someone else's writings, or without memorizing someone else's writings. The same goes for a college physics class about the age of the earth.

Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, you would still not get anywhere. That is primarily because, as one research study showed, 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution, and because the vast majority of people do not know enough about advanced biology to adequately understand it.

I think your post reflects the arrogant and dismissive attitude of so many evolutionists. But I will respond to your question: "At any rate, the Bible does not require people to know anything about science before they become Christians, so why are you so interested in discussing evolution? "

The ToE is a complete repudiation of all that the Bible teaches, despite protests to the contrary. Since this is a religious forum, and since evolution is espoused on this forum, I consider it proper and right to point out the many deficiencies and weaknesses of this theory here. I am not interested in lecturing on the subject, nor does one need to be credentialed by a scientific elite to examine the evidence for themselves. Such a highminded attitude is a hallmark of propaganda and an appeal to authority that has as it's motive getting people to mindlessly follow after this baseless theory. Hitler used such tricks successfully and so do others today, religious and scientific.
As to "African natives who live in remote jungle regions", these people are as intelligent as we are, or more so. They can probably follow the Bible's logical arguments better than many evolutionists: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) It is not that evidence for Creation is lacking, for as Romans 1:20,21 state: God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [persons who deny God] are inexcusable." Regarding deniers of God, verse 21,22 states: "they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened.

Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish." Yes, not their minds but their hearts are "unintelligent", leading to the ludicrous claims made by the ToE. ​