Noahs Ark

[Autodidact]

Myth > Mythos > Passed down/traditional story.

Myths are not fairytales.

I didn't say they were. I merely asked whether or not his best evidence was myths.

Evolution would be a fairytale.

And your computer is a pumpkin.

Mythology is based on actual happenings, and the stories are truthful.

That's so interesting. Does that apply to all the world's myths, or only the ones that happen to coincide with yours?

Atheists have no responce or rebuttal, to the fact a world deluge appears in hundreds of world myths. Key word: world, not local. Atheists try and twist it to make these myths appear as if they only tell of a local flood, but this is not the truth, a world flood or deluge is always reffered to.

Would you like to examine a random sampling of flood myths to test your hypothesis? I'm game.

 

[Autodidact]

LOL!!

10 fallacies of race denial, by an evolutionist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZurClqPGLc

What Darwin wrote on his front cover:

How can you be an evolutionist and deny races exist? The founder of the theory were all racialists.

Furthermore regardless if you are a evolutionist or anti-evolutionist, race is a proven scientific fact.

Well, when you say "science," you're referring to human knowledge prior to the 15th century, and disregarding all scientific progress since then, correct? When you use the word "science," you're talking about something that you, a 19-year old with no training, no history of publishing, no experience doing research and no field, do, correct? Cuz you told us that you're a "scientist," meaning what exactly?

btw, one of the things you don't grasp about science is that it progresses. It wouldn't matter what a bunch of guys in the 19th century thought, unless it turned out to be right. Science is constantly changing and self-correcting. What matters to people who accept science (in the common sense of the word, not Ascythianese) is the current state of scientific knowledge. Which is that there really are no separate races of humans; we're nearly identical. This may distress racists like you, but it turns out to be fact.

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who thinks that gravity doesn't exist to grasp and accept a concept that recent and empirical.

 

[freethinker44]

How can you be an evolutionist and deny races exist? The founder of the theory were all racialists.

Furthermore regardless if you are a evolutionist or anti-evolutionist, race is a proven scientific fact.

150 years ago, race was the same as species, if you had actually read the book you would see that. Further more, who the hell cares what darwin wrote or thought. The theory of evolution today is much more advanced than darwin could have possibly imagined, darwin didn't even discover evolution, it was around before him, he only discovered how it worked. If you have any objections to science and don't want to look completely stupid, I suggest using modern science, or at least theories presented after the industrial age was booming.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Great, we're ready to go. (btw did you see that with modern equipment it took him 4 years to build?) So, first let's figure out how to fit two of each species on there, together with their food for a year. Next, let's take it out on the open ocean in a raging storm. Then we'll talk Noah.

Exactly. Yea...I missed that part about how long it took him. I did read that his son helped him from time to time. I wasn't sure if he had any other contractors. I suspect he did. So it took him 4 years and using modern technology... and the tripped out thing is...it's about 2/3 the size of the supposed Noah's Ark. This isn't even the first or only ark that has been built. Here are others. I'm just waiting to see if anyone is going to take one out for a test drive.....but for now they all pretty much seem to be land based and setup to make a profit...

Hong Kong Christens an Ark of Biblical Proportions - WSJ.com

 

[johnhanks]

Think it will float..or even have a chance of survival in open waters?

This has always seemed to me one of the most persuasive arguments against the literal ark story: it's too elaborate. So, we have this omnipotent god that wants to destroy almost all of humanity while sparing just one family: why can't it do it with just one thought? Hell's teeth, it thought the entire universe into existence, didn't it? Surely willing a bunch of wicked humans into non-existence would be a doddle. So why the elaborate props? Why involve non-sentient beings at all, since they by definition could have had no malice or rebellion in them?

Face it, it's a fairy tale.

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly. Yea...I missed that part about how long it took him. I did read that his son helped him from time to time. I wasn't sure if he had any other contractors. I suspect he did. So it took him 4 years and using modern technology... and the tripped out thing is...it's about 2/3 the size of the supposed Noah's Ark. This isn't even the first or only ark that has been built. Here are others. I'm just waiting to see if anyone is going to take one out for a test drive.....but for now they all pretty much seem to be land based and setup to make a profit...

Hong Kong Christens an Ark of Biblical Proportions - WSJ.com

So people build arks all over the place, but never take any of them out for a sail. Odd.

 

[Smoke]

150 years ago, race was the same as species, if you had actually read the book you would see that.

Actually, just reading the title page should be enough.

 

[challupa]

So people build arks all over the place, but never take any of them out for a sail. Odd.

Not only that, some are built with concrete and steel. Odd that!

 

[Charity]

Sorry, but I thought it was an important nit to pick. Race is a cultural concept, no a biological one. The physical characteristics and cultural traits are very fluid among these ethnic groups. Even language is fluid among different groups. We can trace the development of these traits through time. Your argument is that much stronger if you acknowledge the similarities as well as the differences.

And also I have to admit that alarm bells go off with me whenever I see terms like “100%” being applied to race. It is almost like using the term “pure”. I knew you didn’t intend it this way but I still felt the need to question it.

And I do respect and applaud you for questioning. This places you on the reasonable side of the debate. But I think it is even more important to hold those that I agree with to account. Request for slack denied.

Must be the German in me coming out, I'm trying to make my race 100% pure...
No slack? ****grumble, Mumble****.....

 

[Autodidact]

Something i just wrote from some collected sources i have. I only have access to western literature (european), therefore i can only provide the myths of the early european people's. Many of which contain the mention of the entire earth covered by a deluge. Obviously there are hundreds more outside of European mythologies.

Ogygian deluge (Ancient Greek)

Varro in the 1st century BC, wrote the Ogygian deluge happened in 2136BC (De Re Rustica, III. 1. 3) and was world-wide (Ibid.), a date that closely resembles the Noachian flood of the Bible (Ussher - 2348BC, Masoretic - 2350BC, Josephus - 2256BC). The ancient Greek poet Nonnus, wrote that the flood of Ogyges also covered the entire earth (Dionysiaca, III, 205-207):

“Ogygos made proof of the first roaring deluge, as he cut the air through the highclimbing waters, when all the earth was hidden under the flood.''

Keating's deluge (Irish)

We are told by Geoffrey Keating, in his Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, published in 1634 that the Noachian deluge covered the entire earth and that this occured in 2361BC. The earlier Irish Book of Invasions (11th century) also states the Irish recorded a deluge in their mythology which covered the entire earth.

Druidic and Bardic deluge (British)

Regarding other historical accounts of a deluge which covered the entire earth, one occurs in British Bardic and Druidic traditions. Edward Davies (1756-1831) a Welsh folklorist in his work Celtic Researches on the Origin, Traditions and Languages of the Ancient Britons (1804) recorded the Bardic tradition of a deluge that covered the entire earth (which interestingly appears similar to that of Noah and his ark):

“First, the bursting of the lake of waters, and the overwhelming of the face of all lands, so that all mankind drowned, excepting Dwyvan and Dwyvach, who escaped in a naked vessel and from then the Island of Britain was re-peopled.”

Deluge of the Picts (Scottish)

The Pictish Chronicle, describes the Noachian deluge. A Pictish stoneslab at Elgin Cathedral depicts and describes this deluge, showing men attempting to survive it but who fall under the powerful waves.

Ymir's Deluge (Danish Norse)

In the Norse Eddas (Gylfagginning, VII), it is stated that there was a deluge that covered the entire earth, having sprung from Ymir's blood. Only Bergelmir and his wife and family survived the deluge in a ship:

"The sons of Borr slew Ymir the giant; lo, where he fell there gushed forth so much blood out of his wounds that with it they drowned all the race of the Rime-Giants, save that one, whom giants call Bergelmir, escaped with his household; he went upon his ship, and his wife with him, and they were safe there.''

Saxo Grammaticus in his 12th century Gesta Danorum recorded the Danish version of this Norse myth of Ymir's deluge, which was very similar (VIII. 262).

Oera Linda Book (Frisian)

The Oera Linda Book, records a deluge which covered the entire earth, with the date 2194BC.

Kalevala (Finnish)

In the Kalevala rune entitled "Haava" (''The Wound'', section 8), collected in Northern Ostrobothnia in 1803, the rune tells:

''The blood came forth like a flood
the gore ran like a river:
there was no hummock
and no high mountain
that was not flooded
all from Väinämöinen's toe
from the holy hero's knee''

These are popular recorded deluges from european myths. These arn't even from folklore, there are hundreds more from just folklore alone which mention a deluge which covered the entire earth.

I take that as a no, you're not interested in exploring a RANDOM SAMPLING of the world's flood myths?

 

[challupa]

Question, how would people from that day and age even know what constituted the whole earth? They didn't even know about the Western Hemisphere. It may have been "their" whole earth, but not "the" whole earth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Something i just wrote from some collected sources i have. I only have access to western literature (european), therefore i can only provide the myths of the early european people's. Many of which contain the mention of the entire earth covered by a deluge. Obviously there are hundreds more outside of European mythologies.

Ogygian deluge (Ancient Greek)

Varro in the 1st century BC, wrote the Ogygian deluge happened in 2136BC (De Re Rustica, III. 1. 3) and was world-wide (Ibid.), a date that closely resembles the Noachian flood of the Bible (Ussher - 2348BC, Masoretic - 2350BC, Josephus - 2256BC). The ancient Greek poet Nonnus, wrote that the flood of Ogyges also covered the entire earth (Dionysiaca, III, 205-207):

“Ogygos made proof of the first roaring deluge, as he cut the air through the highclimbing waters, when all the earth was hidden under the flood.''

Keating's deluge (Irish)

We are told by Geoffrey Keating, in his Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, published in 1634 that the Noachian deluge covered the entire earth and that this occured in 2361BC. The earlier Irish Book of Invasions (11th century) also states the Irish recorded a deluge in their mythology which covered the entire earth.

Druidic and Bardic deluge (British)

Regarding other historical accounts of a deluge which covered the entire earth, one occurs in British Bardic and Druidic traditions. Edward Davies (1756-1831) a Welsh folklorist in his work Celtic Researches on the Origin, Traditions and Languages of the Ancient Britons (1804) recorded the Bardic tradition of a deluge that covered the entire earth (which interestingly appears similar to that of Noah and his ark):

“First, the bursting of the lake of waters, and the overwhelming of the face of all lands, so that all mankind drowned, excepting Dwyvan and Dwyvach, who escaped in a naked vessel and from then the Island of Britain was re-peopled.”

Deluge of the Picts (Scottish)

The Pictish Chronicle, describes the Noachian deluge. A Pictish stoneslab at Elgin Cathedral depicts and describes this deluge, showing men attempting to survive it but who fall under the powerful waves.

Ymir's Deluge (Danish Norse)

In the Norse Eddas (Gylfagginning, VII), it is stated that there was a deluge that covered the entire earth, having sprung from Ymir's blood. Only Bergelmir and his wife and family survived the deluge in a ship:

"The sons of Borr slew Ymir the giant; lo, where he fell there gushed forth so much blood out of his wounds that with it they drowned all the race of the Rime-Giants, save that one, whom giants call Bergelmir, escaped with his household; he went upon his ship, and his wife with him, and they were safe there.''

Saxo Grammaticus in his 12th century Gesta Danorum recorded the Danish version of this Norse myth of Ymir's deluge, which was very similar (VIII. 262).

Oera Linda Book (Frisian)

The Oera Linda Book, records a deluge which covered the entire earth, with the date 2194BC.

Kalevala (Finnish)

In the Kalevala rune entitled "Haava" (''The Wound'', section 8), collected in Northern Ostrobothnia in 1803, the rune tells:

''The blood came forth like a flood
the gore ran like a river:
there was no hummock
and no high mountain
that was not flooded
all from Väinämöinen's toe
from the holy hero's knee''

These are popular recorded deluges from european myths. These arn't even from folklore, there are hundreds more from just folklore alone which mention a deluge which covered the entire earth.

None of these people traveled the "world" at the time of said flood. If you are in your country and in your home town there's no way for you to know the "whole world" flooded......considering they had no planes or boats with motors and sails. The other side to this is...there is no scientific evidence the world was even flooded. Even if you melt all the polar ice caps and bring forth any water underground there is not enouh water to cover the entire earth. These stories are mythic stories. the story of Noah is not even entirely new. It is a story that was adopted and redacted from the Epic Of Gilgamesh bible writers did the same thing concerning the Creation myth found in it...coming from the Enuma Elish/Astrahasis.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Question, how would people from that day and age even know what constituted the whole earth? They didn't even know about the Western Hemisphere. It may have been "their" whole earth, but not "the" whole earth.

Dang....Challupa...You beat me to it.....:bow:

 

[Autodidact]

Problem is, i do own it and have read it. I'm a book collector. I have an older, rare print of Origin of Species. The modern politically correct cover though doesn't contain the mention of ''favoured races'', they removed the mention of it obviously.

Erm no...Darwin believed races were not different species. Darwin believed in monogenism not polygenism. When the theory of evolution was first concocted, people were split on the issue of monogenism vs. polygenism. Polygenists like Josiah C. Nott (Indigenous Races of the Earth, 1857) and George Gliddon (Types of Mankind, 1854) were polygenists who believed different races (i.e blacks) were different species.

If you check the appendix/last chapters of Darwin's Descent of Man (1871) he attempted to refute the polygenists who thought other races were a different species.

Darwin believed all races were the same ''specie'', but believed that different races were unequal and were in a struggle for life.

That's why i find it funny you evolutionists i have met on this forum, are the biggest anti-racists, when your beliefs stem from racists.

You guys clearly arn't educated on any of these issues. Get an education then try to engage debating me.

And yet, interestingly, the only racist in the thread is also opposed to evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Problem is, i do own it and have read it. I'm a book collector. I have an older, rare print of Origin of Species. The modern politically correct cover though doesn't contain the mention of ''favoured races'', they removed the mention of it obviously.

Erm no...Darwin believed races were not different species. Darwin believed in monogenism not polygenism. When the theory of evolution was first concocted, people were split on the issue of monogenism vs. polygenism. Polygenists like Josiah C. Nott (Indigenous Races of the Earth, 1857) and George Gliddon (Types of Mankind, 1854) were polygenists who believed different races (i.e blacks) were different species.

If you check the appendix/last chapters of Darwin's Descent of Man (1871) he attempted to refute the polygenists who thought other races were a different species.

Darwin believed all races were the same ''specie'', but believed that different races were unequal and were in a struggle for life.

That's why i find it funny you evolutionists i have met on this forum, are the biggest anti-racists, when your beliefs stem from racists.

You guys clearly arn't educated on any of these issues. Get an education then try to engage debating me.

When someone's thinking is a confused as Ascythian, discussion becomes difficult. To Ascythian, "science" is something that happened only prior to the 19th century. So he's using words to mean something completely different than the rest of us. As I say, conversation becomes difficult.

To begin with, Ascythian seems to have difficulty grasping the whole concept of scientific progress; that a given scientific theory is not like a religious doctrine with adherents, and it doesn't matter what Darwin thought, when he was wrong. Science is able to continually sift and reappraise, keeping what's correct and discarding what's wrong.

Or, again, Ascythian seems unable to grasp the simple concept that the word "specie" means coin.

Anyway, Ascythian, what's your position? Do you believe that different "races" of people are different species?

 

[xkatz]

What Darwin wrote on his front cover:

Darwin's views of evolution are seen as incomplete by most modern scientist.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Problem is, i do own it and have read it. I'm a book collector. I have an older, rare print of Origin of Species. The modern politically correct cover though doesn't contain the mention of ''favoured races'', they removed the mention of it obviously.

Erm no...Darwin believed races were not different species. Darwin believed in monogenism not polygenism. When the theory of evolution was first concocted, people were split on the issue of monogenism vs. polygenism. Polygenists like Josiah C. Nott (Indigenous Races of the Earth, 1857) and George Gliddon (Types of Mankind, 1854) were polygenists who believed different races (i.e blacks) were different species.

If you check the appendix/last chapters of Darwin's Descent of Man (1871) he attempted to refute the polygenists who thought other races were a different species.

Darwin believed all races were the same ''specie'', but believed that different races were unequal and were in a struggle for life.

That's why i find it funny you evolutionists i have met on this forum, are the biggest anti-racists, when your beliefs stem from racists.

You guys clearly arn't educated on any of these issues. Get an education then try to engage debating me.

Are you kidding me...? Even if he was a racist....so what. That has nothing to do with his findings that assisted scientific progression.

As far as race...do you take the same kind of tenacity when it comes to understanding your bible "literally".....?......Considering it condones racism, slavery, murder, chauvinism, oppression.....YES...the list goes on and on and on.....

 

[freethinker44]

There has never been any ''scientific progress''. The idea that man has evolved scientifically, technologically, etc is all evolutionist belief, not fact. I will make a thread sometime and show you that everything that exists now, always has thousands of years ago. That includes aircraft, electricity etc.

Really? We haven't gained any new knowledge since ancient times? Did ancient civilizations put satelites into space or walk on the moon? Did they have cars, computers, internet, printing press, or nuclear power? I don't know, maybe I missed something in history class but that sounds like scientific progress to me.


I guess it is plausible that we haven't gained any new knowledge, we really don't know since religious mobs have a tendency to destroy anything that even has a remote possibility of causing doubt. Science has done a decent job of rebuilding the religious horrors done during the dark ages though.

 

[xkatz]

There has never been any ''scientific progress''. The idea that man has evolved scientifically, technologically, etc is all evolutionist belief, not fact. I will make a thread sometime and show you that everything that exists now, always has thousands of years ago. That includes aircraft, electricity etc.

For starters you should look up the Antikythera mechanism, and the Baghdad Batteries.

Then how come the internet didn't exist?

 

[challupa]

Then how come the internet didn't exist?

Well because back then they didn't really need it cause everyone communicated telepathically!:faint: