How do you define evolution?

[gnostic]

The point is about the Genesis account, it says "mountains" of Ararat, not "Mount Ararat."

So?

There are only two elevations of mountains of Ararat:

• the Greater Ararat (5100 m) &
• the Lesser Ararat (3900 m)

And there are no physical evidence of flood deposits on either of them in human history (as in written history), let along remain of Ark.

Plus there are no evidence that the BSDH flooding ever affecting the vicinity of those mountains in 5700 BCE, especially since there are mountains between Ararat and the Black Sea - eg the Pontic Alps.

 

[YoursTrue]

So?

There are only two elevations of mountains of Ararat:

• the Greater Ararat (5100 m) &
• the Lesser Ararat (3900 m)

And there are no physical evidence of flood deposits on either of them in human history (as in written history), let along remain of Ark.

Plus there are no evidence that the BSDH flooding ever affecting the vicinity of those mountains in 5700 BCE, especially since there are mountains between Ararat and the Black Sea - eg the Pontic Alps.

The estimation of flooding by the Black Sea by geologists is simply proof, along with other estimates of surfaces and erosion, that mass flooding occurred. I am not saying that means the flood of Noah's time, but I am discussing the fact that massive flooding is said to have occurred. Again, not saying that means the flood as described in the Bible. I am saying that geologists do say that massive floods have caused differentiations on the surface of the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

So?

There are only two elevations of mountains of Ararat:

• the Greater Ararat (5100 m) &
• the Lesser Ararat (3900 m)

And there are no physical evidence of flood deposits on either of them in human history (as in written history), let along remain of Ark.

Plus there are no evidence that the BSDH flooding ever affecting the vicinity of those mountains in 5700 BCE, especially since there are mountains between Ararat and the Black Sea - eg the Pontic Alps.

Yes, well I still am looking at this. And so I found this from, I suppose, a "non-creationist" source. I think. Heavens forbid I should quote any information from, a "creationist website." So, here's what one article was saying about Dr. Robert Ballard, a marine explorer and scientist
"He [Dr. Robert Ballard] formed his own exploration institute in Mystic, Connecticut, before going on to lead National Geographic expeditions to probe the mud of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea for lost treasures - and now a lost world."
Please note that he did not claim to have found the landscape of Noah, rather saying that there had "been a major flood, that people were living here when it happened." (Much found under water indicating life on top of that water that went under.)
Evidence found of Noah's ark flood victims | Science | The Guardian

 

[YoursTrue]

That's great, YoursTrue.

First, you were claiming that the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis (proposed date of 5700 BCE) was associated with the Genesis Flood (supposedly 2300 BCE).
.

I don't believe I claimed that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The estimation of flooding by the Black Sea by geologists is simply proof, along with other estimates of surfaces and erosion, that mass flooding occurred. I am not saying that means the flood of Noah's time, but I am discussing the fact that massive flooding is said to have occurred. Again, not saying that means the flood as described in the Bible. I am saying that geologists do say that massive floods have caused differentiations on the surface of the earth.

Do you have any idea how quickly the Black Sea flood advanced? Give us a guess.

 

[YoursTrue]

You think it's speculation that the fossils we find had parents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc.??
You think we had to be around to see that, or it didn't happen?

Seriously?

No. But what I am saying is that, from what I read, dna inclusion or recognition in human ancestors can be undetectable the further back one goes as far as family lineage or descent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, the evidence against the Flood of Noah is endless. The evidence for it is nonexistent. Which means, once again, that believers in the Flood are calling their own God a liar.

When I was still a Christian I didn't believe that God was a liar so I didn't believe the myths of Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. But what I am saying is that, from what I read, dna inclusion or recognition in human ancestors can be undetectable the further back one goes as far as family lineage or descent.

So what? What does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have any idea how quickly the Black Sea flood advanced? Give us a guess.

Here again is what I am saying: scientists seem to agree (correct me if I'm wrong) that massive flooding (or floods) have happened on the earth. According to the article in the Guardian, this is what it says: "The Black Sea was once a freshwater lake, well below sea level. About 7,000 years ago, according to geological evidence, the rising Mediterranean sea pushed a channel through what is now the Bosphorus, and then seawater poured in at about 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls. The Black Sea would have widened at the rate of a mile a day, submerging the original shoreline under hundreds of feet of salty water." This is not about estimates of when it happened, but rather the earth or great portions of the earth have been flooded many times. Do you agree with that premise, that great portions of the earth have been flooded many times causing the topography to change and civilizations to go underwater (drown, in effect)?
So apparently the scientists conclude that massive flooding by the Black Sea happened about 7,000 years ago, not when the flood of Noah's time as described in the Bible. But they do agree that massive floods changed a few things on the earth. And right now that is what I'm seeing from the article, whether or not they have the dating correct. The topography shows that something big happened. Scientists believe it happened about 7,000 years ago. Perhaps they'll change their minds about the timing, science is science. But, as Dr. Ballard said, what he saw he saw. Underwater. (I didn't entitle the article quoted...btw.)

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? What does that have to do with the discussion?

It is part of the discussion of evolution and comparison of "relation" by dna of fossils as far as evolution between gorillas, the "unknown common ancestor" and, of course, humans. OK, bonobos and chimpanzees, and fishes, too. That UCA leading to humans is not yet found, but since it apparently is not existing, really -- who knows why? Drowned out perhaps in a cataclysmic event, not biblical, maybe you think? Or not suitable environment, maybe?

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again, the evidence against the Flood of Noah is endless. The evidence for it is nonexistent. Which means, once again, that believers in the Flood are calling their own God a liar.

When I was still a Christian I didn't believe that God was a liar so I didn't believe the myths of Genesis.

I am going to wait to understand it better. Who knows what science (or life) will reveal? And that is how I intend to think about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here again is what I am saying: scientists seem to agree (correct me if I'm wrong) that massive flooding (or floods) have happened on the earth. According to the article in the Guardian, this is what it says: "The Black Sea was once a freshwater lake, well below sea level. About 7,000 years ago, according to geological evidence, the rising Mediterranean sea pushed a channel through what is now the Bosphorus, and then seawater poured in at about 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls. The Black Sea would have widened at the rate of a mile a day, submerging the original shoreline under hundreds of feet of salty water." This is not about estimates of when it happened, but rather the earth or great portions of the earth have been flooded many times. Do you agree with that premise, that great portions of the earth have been flooded many times causing the topography to change and civilizations to go underwater (drown, in effect)?
So apparently the scientists conclude that massive flooding by the Black Sea happened about 7,000 years ago, not when the flood of Noah's time as described in the Bible. But they do agree that massive floods changed a few things on the earth. And right now that is what I'm seeing from the article, whether or not they have the dating correct. The topography shows that something big happened. Scientists believe it happened about 7,000 years ago. Perhaps they'll change their minds about the timing, science is science. But, as Dr. Ballard said, what he saw he saw. Underwater. (I didn't entitle the article quoted...btw.)

Yes, areas that were land became seas and vice versa. So what? That does not support the Noah's Ark myth. At no point in all of man's existence, and in fact for hundreds of millions of years before that was all of the land covered by water. Some parts were covered. Some were not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is part of the discussion of evolution and comparison of "relation" by dna of fossils as far as evolution between gorillas, the "unknown common ancestor" and, of course, humans. OK, bonobos and chimpanzees, and fishes, too. That UCA leading to humans is not yet found, but since it apparently is not existing, really -- who knows why? Drowned out perhaps in a cataclysmic event, not biblical, maybe you think? Or not suitable environment, maybe?

The DNA that exists now tells us that we are related to other apes, just as the DNA that exists now can tell a man "You ARE the father". Haven't you ever watched at least a bit of the Maury Povich show? DNA can tell us quite a bit. You should be trying to learn how it shows that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to wait to understand it better. Who knows what science (or life) will reveal? And that is how I intend to think about it.

Science has already revealed that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong. That is all that you care about in reality and it is long passed the time for you to admit it.

Why even believe that myth? You clearly do not understand it. God is the one at fault in the Garden of Eden myth. He screwed up his creation, set Adam and Eve up to fail. And then blamed them for his incompetence. He is an evil God. Oh, and let's not forget that the Serpent was the only one that spoke the truth. Why do you want to worship a vain, immoral, and incompetent God?

 

[YoursTrue]

The DNA that exists now tells us that we are related to other apes, just as the DNA that exists now can tell a man "You ARE the father". Haven't you ever watched at least a bit of the Maury Povich show? DNA can tell us quite a bit. You should be trying to learn how it shows that.

According to what I understand, that's between "close," "very close" relatives. The farther one goes back, the less information about relation there is.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science has already revealed that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong. That is all that you care about in reality and it is long passed the time for you to admit it.

Why even believe that myth? You clearly do not understand it. God is the one at fault in the Garden of Eden myth. He screwed up his creation, set Adam and Eve up to fail. And then blamed them for his incompetence. He is an evil God. Oh, and let's not forget that the Serpent was the only one that spoke the truth. Why do you want to worship a vain, immoral, and incompetent God?

Whatever happened, however it happened, whether symbolic or not, we die. We, as human beings, are the only ones that have developed any circumstance about God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to what I understand, that's between "close," "very close" relatives. The farther one goes back, the less information about relation there is.

No, there is only different information. We know that all people share some common ancestors. The exact degree of relatedness does get harder to judge, but there is no question of being related. That is true of us and other apes too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever happened, however it happened, whether symbolic or not, we die. We, as human beings, are the only ones that have developed any circumstance about God.

Well we do not even know if a God exists or not.. Right now it appears that God is a human invention.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, there is only different information. We know that all people share some common ancestors. The exact degree of relatedness does get harder to judge, but there is no question of being related. That is true of us and other apes too.

None of that means that a Higher Power was not involved in giving life to the items. (Can't think of a better term.) And, of course, there are a "few things" missing between gorillas and humans. Missing in the sense that much may be the same (better said as similar), but a small percentage isn't there. It doesn't mean that everything evolved from something that came before them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of that means that a Higher Power was not involved in giving life to the items. (Can't think of a better term.) And, of course, there are a "few things" missing between gorillas and humans. Missing in the sense that much may be the same (better said as similar), but a small percentage isn't there. It doesn't mean that everything evolved from something that came before them.

Who knows. A higher power may be involved. But tell me, do you believe in unicorns? Or the Loch Ness Monster? How about the chupacabra?