Noahs Ark

[sandy whitelinger]

[/i]



You've got to be kidding me. Bware quoted (your) bible on point which he seems to know better than you. Your scripture say that exactly.....

Genesis 8:17
Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

Now you're just not being honest and playing around.....

Actually Bware misquoted the passage as well as misapplied it. And while I am playing around I am being honest.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I have no idea how you guys have patience to deal with this.

Me neither.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And that is just about how enjoyable and enlightening any conversation with sandy turns out to be.

Yet you keep trying. How rational is that?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger
Space separated the waters from above from the waters below. Before that, according to Genesis 1, there was only heaven and earth, the deep, and possibly the sky.

Do you have a voice of your own, or are you only capable of regurgitating biblical nonsense? No one lives for 600 years. I need a scientific or realistic explanation as to where all this water came from and were it all went. Please preach on your own time, here we need rational explanations for such an extraordinary event.

Goddidit. I can also preach all I want. All I did was correct a biblical misrepresentation. It was you guys who wished to continue the discussion and take in a different direction. I'm just playing along.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm sorry but no intelligent educated person could possibly believe this.

What, that that is what the Bible says?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The waters receded into sea basins. Scientists say the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth's surface. In some place there are great underwater abysses more than 6 miles deep at the plate boundaries. Movement of the plates, and the sea bottom sinking, causing great trenches to be opened, would allow water to drain off land. Perhaps before the Flood there was more land area. Plus with the freezing at the ice caps the water level would be lower. Rising water is a concern if they were now to melt.

That's a Biblical misrepresentation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Okay to everyone on this thread, there seems to be a major misunderstanding between those who are just simply stating what the bible says and those who wants explanations as to what actually may have occurred.

The arguments have been such as this:

-"Well where did the water come from?"

-"Well, the bible says the window of heaven"

-"Well what is this window?"

-"I don't know, the bible doesn't say."

The responders are not saying that this is what happened or that this is what they believed becuase that would be completely irrelevant in this context, they are just simply saying what is said in the bible as the OP tends to lean towards that for basis of the discussion and explanations given within it. Their point is that according to the bible so-and-so is/was that way. They really can't provide an explanation beyond that because it would be unfair to ask that of them, they had no hand in the making of the bible.

Somebody finally gets it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Somebody finally gets it.

You have been asked if you think the Bible is literal, why not give a strait answer?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do I need to do this to you again? Sigh...
Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

That spot I bolded and underlined, it says that if he ate from the tree of life (which he didn't) THEN he would be immortal. Nowhere does it say he would only live to be 1000 years old. Infact in Genesis 6 says that man would only live to be 120 years old.

It seems that using the Bible (which you seem confused about) doesn't really work to defend your point. You could try, I dunno science.

You are misunderstanding your two points. It would seem that eating of the tree must need to happen more than once in order to live forever (assuming that at some point previous Adam and Eve had partaken of the fruit.). Also, logically Adam was not immortal since he died. Tthe reference to 120 years was until the time of the flood and not the age of individual men.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You have been asked if you think the Bible is literal, why not give a strait answer?

Beacause I don't have an answer. What I do see is that Biblical history and natural history do not coincide.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ding! So if all of nature makes it clear that there was no flood, then we know that there was indeed no flood, because God cannot lie, right?

Not necassarily. It means that there was no worldwide flood on the earth as we know it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Beacause I don't have an answer. What I do see is that Biblical history and natural history do not coincide.

Obviously.

So which is the true history of the Earth?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

During the 2nd creative period or 'day' when the earth's atmospheric 'expanse' was formed, there were waters beneath that 'expanse' and waters above it (Gen. 1:6,7)

Another Biblical misrepresentation. Space was created the second day. There is no mention of when the sky was created or formed.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Obviously.

So which is the true history of the Earth?

The earth of Biblical history does not seem to match the history of the earth of natural history.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The earth of Biblical history does not seem to match the history of the earth of natural history.

Again, Obviously.

Your failure to make a commitment is also obvious.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Again, Obviously.

Your failure to make a commitment is also obvious.

A commitment to what? Also your failure to imagine anything beyond you own understanding is obvious. Is that willful ignorance (or as I like to say, obstinant ignorance)?

 

[tumbleweed41]

A commitment to what?

A clear statement for one.

Also your failure to imagine anything beyond you own understanding is obvious. Is that willful ignorance (or as I like to say, obstinant ignorance)?

My understanding is from the observable world. My failure to blindly accept the reveled revelations of men is indeed willful. But far from ignorance. Obstinacy indicates that which is unreasonable. I do not think it is reasonable for any person to accept both a mythical history, and a natural history. Especially while holding that both are true, but also admitting they cannot coincide.

 

[Amhairghine]

Not necassarily. It means that there was no worldwide flood on the earth as we know it.

I have been studying the story of Noah's Flood as a soldier in Iraq (first war). I am not an archaeologist or geologist. I am a scientist however.

We know for sure that there never was a worldwide flood. There was never enough water (2.5 billion Km^3) to raise sea levels 8 km to cover Mount Everest. There was no source for that much water. If a watery comet hit earth, it would not have been a flood but a planetary catastrophe. Look at the topography of the Persian Gulf, Iran, Arabia, and Abu Dhabi.

One can see that the Persian Gulf is a very shallow gulf with only a deep narrow submarine valley connecting Iraq to the Indian Ocean. Note that the shallow seas cover the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz (Bandar Abbas in Iran to the northern tip of Oman. That narrow strait was likely a land bridge during the Ice Age when sea levels were low enough to expose the Bering Strait Land Bridge and a land connection of Ireland, Britain, France, and Denmark. The height of the Ice Age lowered the sea levels to expose the Persian Gulf to a dry wide flat valley with a river running down the centre. The Strait of Hormuz was dry and kept Indian Ocean seawater out of that expansive plain. The land outside of the Strait of Hormuz was a shallow continental shelf. Then there was a deep trench like the one off the coast of Ice Age Florida.

As sea levels rose from 12,000 to 11,000 BCE, the narrow continental shelf water rose first, and then flooded across the Land Bridge of Hormuz (Bandar Abbas to Oman). As the water flowed and eroded the higher land of the land bridge, Flow increased. At this point, I speculate a major Richter 9 quake in a zone of common major earthquakes. This fractured the Hormuz Land Bridge opening the floodgates that filled the entire Persian-Arabian broad tectonic valley. This huge flood with an added tsunami would send water beyond the current northern shoreline of the Persian Gulf into the Mesopotamian valley.

People had been living there since 70,000 BCE. This flood inundated their "world" as they perceived it. Long afterward Semites, Elamites, and Sumerians told and retold that story. Perhaps each story was of a different family. Thus, we have Gilgamesh and the later Noah's Flood.

Alternatives to the Ice Age raised Sea Levels, Persian Gulf Flood with or without a huge quake. Possibly, there was a huge Tsunami big as the Indian Ocean Quake of December 2004 that may have worsened the situation. There was a major End Ice Age flood that rising waters of the Mediterranean overflowed the land bridge of the Bosporus separating land on which Istanbul stands on the west in Europe, and Oskudar on the East in Asia Minor.

Sea Water poured into what was (during the Height of the Ice Age) a fresh water lake (Black Lake). This rapidly poured seawater into the fresh water lake, killing fish, flooding the littoral of the entire shoreline of former Black Lake. Now it is the much larger and deeper Black Sea. Hundreds of thousands of people living along the old fresh water shoreline were drowned and another hundred thousand were forced to migrate rapidly to higher ground. Some might have even headed toward the Caucasus Mountains (say, Mount Ararat).

The least plausible is some big Nile River Flood but we have no evidence of other than the seasonal Nile Floods.

The other major flood was in Washington State at the end of the Ice Age. As the continental glacier began to melt, it formed huge lakes held back by a glacial Ice Dam. The Glacial Lake Missoula was held back by the Clark Fork and Columbia River Ice Dams. The Dam broke several times producing huge floods that covered most of Washington State and carved the gorge of the Columbia to the Pacific Ocean.

Native Americans lived there at that time and they have legends of those floods in addition to geology proof of flood basalts across central Washington. Native Americans have several different stories about the Glacial Dam (Bridge of the Gods) and the devastating flood that destroyed many villages and animal herds. It was an American equivalent and probably occurred near the same time as the Mythical Noah's Flood.

Summary: Noah's flood was possibly a regional flood but never a world flood. The legends were based on a real local event.

Amhairghine


.

I attribute this photo to Google Earth and have not received payment in any way for the picture.

Amhairghine

.

 

[Amhairghine]

A clear statement for one.


My understanding is from the observable world. My failure to blindly accept the reveled revelations of men is indeed willful. But far from ignorance. Obstinacy indicates that which is unreasonable. I do not think it is reasonable for any person to accept both a mythical history, and a natural history. Especially while holding that both are true, but also admitting they cannot coincide.

I agree mostly. To me my understanding is from the observable world, from scientific facts, from scientific Theories based on the best evidence available, from predictions of mathematical analysis, from screening of hard-wired brain sceptical filter, and from rational speculation.

It is unreasonable in my opinion for a supposedly intelligent person to accept hearsay stories (Torah, Bible, Quran, etc>) for which there is no solid observable evidence. I think it stupid to accept accounts that defy reason and logic. I think it is irrational to accept stories that violate natural laws or natural theories, and accept magical explanations. (Virgin Birth, resurrection from real death, turning real water into real wine, walking on water deeper than 10 cm.) Cloning a human from the rib of another human is today scientifically a probable option. However, cloning Adam’s rib marrow cells into a female would be a real problem. Not only would the Magic God have to remove Adam’s Y chromosomes from the rib specimen, and add an extra X to make Eve a woman. More would be necessary. Other somatic genes are known to work with the sex genes X and Y in formation of secondary sex characteristics. The X and Y alone do not do it all. Tell Jerry Falwell that it might have been Adam and Steve.

I fail to understand how a person can believe in the 14 billion year old universe, the 4.5 billion year old world, the 4.9 billion year old Sun, the spherical Earth, the Heliocentric Solar System, all cognition and consciousness known produced by neural circuits, and energy-matter inter-transformations. Yet that person believes in Eve cloned from Adam's rib but be a female with identical genome as Adam (each had to have XY sex chromosomes.) That person also believes in Jesus being born from a virgin impregnated by a god. Does God have chromosomes? Or was Jesus necessarily a woman?

Can such a person who accepts scientific reality also accept that a brain dead and rotten for 36 hours be reanimated with exactly the same (exactly exactly) trillions of circuits, exactly and exactly the same billions of neurons with the exactly same synaptic connections and composing the same exacts circuits and mega-circuit programmes. In addition, that brain must contain the same exact set of memories without error (knowing that memories are spread out on millions to billions of complex circuits. If such a brain were incredibly replaced the necrotic mass in the skull of dead Jesus to make a resurrected Jesus. Does that not mean the resurrected Jesus is a copy, perhaps a good copy, but not the same pre-crucifixion brain?

Amhairghine

 

[richardlowellt]

I'm not understanding your point.

[/QUOTE]Of course you don't it's science, something you are totally unfamiliar with. Whatever you do stay away from those evil books on science, you know, the ones that tell you how your world operates.