Noahs Ark

[gnostic]

I think the Israelites simply took and adapt a story by the Babylonian, who themselves (Babylonians) took it from the older Sumerian.

The Sumerian story about Ziusudra existed as early as 2600-2500 BCE, through oral tradition, around the same time as the Sumerian Gilgamesh, and both myths were transmitted into writing around the same time, in the 3rd Dynasty period in Ur (around 2300-2100 BCE). No global flood during the 2600-2000 BCE.

If we are to believe the Genesis and the Bible literally, then it would have happened between 2350-2100 BCE, depending on the calculation.

My calculation, using the Hebrew calendar of 5770 Jewish Era for 2010 CE, would have put the creation of Adam at 3760 BC.

According to the Genesis, Adam died at age 930, which would mean in the year 930 Jewish Era in the Hebrew calendar, hence putting at 2830 BCE. Noah was born in the year 1056 Jewish Era, so 2704 BCE.

Since the Flood happened 1656 Jewish Era, or 1656 years after the creation of Adam, then in our calendar system, the Flood would happen in 2104 BCE.

And that's (2104 BCE) would put it in 3rd dynasty of Ur, in the middle of Ur-Nammu's reign; there were no destruction of Ur.

According to the Genesis, also Noah's son, Ham had supposedly started a tribe that became the Egyptians, but the Egyptians have existed before the centuries before the Flood. The Flood would have put it in the middle of 9th dynasty of Egypt, known as the Herakleopolitan dynasty, because the Egyptian capital was moved to Herakleopolis (Henen-nesut in Egyptian).

Neither Egypt nor the Mesopotamian cities suffered discontinuity in their dynasties, which would have happened had their been a global flood, but clearly it didn't.

 

[McBell]

What you mean to say are the facts which align with your belief pattern.

LOL when a person doesn't have beliefs, they do not need to protect them.

But you keep protecting your beliefs and your absolute truth.

how about you stop trying to tell me what I mean?

 

[AxisMundi]

It may not stand up to some in the scientific community, albeit in line with the Theory of Evolution, is stands up just the same pertaining to scientific method.

In no way, shape, or form does Creationism/ID (same thing, BTW) even approach being a science. Nor does it follow, or even partake, of the Scientific Method. Creationism/ID requires the same ignorance, and ignoring, of science as any YECer statements, from tectonic hydroplaning to a 6000 year old Earth.

For example, the "Irreducible Complexity" part of Creationism/ID was totally blasted apart by Prof. Ken Miller during the Kitzmiller v Dover court case which saw ID rightfully booted, hard, out of public schools in Pennsylvania.

Prof. Miller is a practicing Catholic, BTW, and not some "rabid, foaming at the mouth godless atheist", as some have claimed when I've introduced this vid into this debate elswhere.

IC completely ignored plain sciences already known and widely excepted.

Here is the vid of Prof. Miller explaining not only the Mac truck sized holes in IC, but ID as well, and lists some of those "transitional" species Creationist/ID proponents like saying don't exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Again a whole post which doesn't pertain to the OP. And of course it is me who doesn't stay on topic and tries to divert it.

It's in keeping with the OP and the flow of the entire thread. The OP's question was an easy one and has been addressed. As the thread progressed the subject matter changed a little. If you'll notice, every response in my previous post has something to do with the WWF. In that post I'm simply informing you that I'm setting aside the argument about evolution. "At the moment" it's a non-issue. I'm not dealing with the existence or non existence of a god...I'm only talking about the flood itself and the lack of geological data for it. In other post I've dealt with the ship's architecture and construction as well as the many different species and their highly specialized diets.

I raised the point that some Theists believe that God, having super natural powers could eliminate any evidence of a flood that God wanted to, and place into peoples minds that a flood never existed after they were brought back from the dead. Bang, there goes your so called facts of why the Egyptians and Chinese didn't report it. They (some theists) alledge, God per se, erased it.

Again, I'm only dealing with those who take the story literally. We can't take this type of assumption as evidence. There's nothing to substantiate the above assumptions you've presented.

Others will argue the valid point pertaining to carbon dating. Others will point to the valid point that surface rocks of the crust return to the mantel, evidence is lost. Others will point to the facts that tectonic plates move,sometimes very rapidly and without warning, again evidence could be lost or even moved.

These aren't "valid points"....This is strictly your belief pattern. "I do not have your belief patterns. I do not hang to power of suggestions like you do."......

 

[johnhanks]

Hmm, how could it happen that people who populated China completely forgot the language and culture they left behind... etc? (Genesis 11:1-9) And how could people have migrated so far so quickly? (Genesis 11:1-9) Clearly, the Bible gives the historical answer.

Yes, I had a feeling you'd come back with the Babel myth. Odd that the Chinese seemed to have no perception or recollection that they'd been magically scattered from the plain of Shinar to the far east; odd too that not only their language but their physical appearance was changed, epicanthic folds and all.

However, rusra, if you have swallowed this fairy-tale so far in your life, I'm sure you're not going to abandon it now. Enjoy.

 

[footprints]

how about you stop trying to tell me what I mean?

My apologies, I was just trying to make you sound reasonable.

However be as unreasonable as you want to be, it is your life.

 

[footprints]

In no way, shape, or form does Creationism/ID (same thing, BTW) even approach being a science. Nor does it follow, or even partake, of the Scientific Method. Creationism/ID requires the same ignorance, and ignoring, of science as any YECer statements, from tectonic hydroplaning to a 6000 year old Earth.

For example, the "Irreducible Complexity" part of Creationism/ID was totally blasted apart by Prof. Ken Miller during the Kitzmiller v Dover court case which saw ID rightfully booted, hard, out of public schools in Pennsylvania.

Prof. Miller is a practicing Catholic, BTW, and not some "rabid, foaming at the mouth godless atheist", as some have claimed when I've introduced this vid into this debate elswhere.

IC completely ignored plain sciences already known and widely excepted.

Here is the vid of Prof. Miller explaining not only the Mac truck sized holes in IC, but ID as well, and lists some of those "transitional" species Creationist/ID proponents like saying don't exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

And the theory of evolution pertains to a beginning of something being created from nothing or an effect without a cause. An unknown. Of course evolutionists never want to discuss the absolute beginning, and for very good reason.

 

[footprints]

It's in keeping with the OP and the flow of the entire thread. The OP's question was an easy one and has been addressed. As the thread progressed the subject matter changed a little. If you'll notice, every response in my previous post has something to do with the WWF. In that post I'm simply informing you that I'm setting aside the argument about evolution. "At the moment" it's a non-issue. I'm not dealing with the existence or non existence of a god...I'm only talking about the flood itself and the lack of geological data for it. In other post I've dealt with the ship's architecture and construction as well as the many different species and their highly specialized diets.

Any point which goes against a belief pattern is made a non issue by that belief pattern.

Again, I'm only dealing with those who take the story literally. We can't take this type of assumption as evidence. There's nothing to substantiate the above assumptions you've presented.

Perhaps not to you. Is the debate still going? Will the debate be over when this thread is finished? Guess what, some people do not believe you. That is the fact of life which is very real and very tangible.

These aren't "valid points"....This is strictly your belief pattern. "I do not have your belief patterns. I do not hang to power of suggestions like you do."......

Just not valid to you, and your creationist type belief pattern.

 

[rusra02]

Yes, I had a feeling you'd come back with the Babel myth. Odd that the Chinese seemed to have no perception or recollection that they'd been magically scattered from the plain of Shinar to the far east; odd too that not only their language but their physical appearance was changed, epicanthic folds and all.

However, rusra, if you have swallowed this fairy-tale so far in your life, I'm sure you're not going to abandon it now. Enjoy.

It may be comforting to you to dismiss the Bible history of Babel as 'fairy-tale'. So many others have thus dismissed Bible accounts that later were confirmed by archeological finds. There are thousands of languages and dialects, and the Bible explains why. Archaeologist Sir Henry Rawlinson said that “if we were to be thus guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated."—Gen. 11:1-9.

 

[Valjean]

And the theory of evolution pertains to a beginning of something being created from nothing or an effect without a cause. An unknown. Of course evolutionists never want to discuss the absolute beginning, and for very good reason.

The theory of evolution, for the hundredth time, pertains to change in already extant life.

The original biogenesis is another matter entirely, but no-one investigating it is proposing an effect without a cause or something from nothing. These are creationist tenets. It's creationists that believe 'magic poofing' is a reasonable hypothesis.

Why do you say evolutionists never want to discuss the absolute beginning? First, keep in mind that the "absolute beginning" is the purview of physics and chemistry, not evolutionary biology. Saying evolutionists don't want to discuss it is like saying automotive engineers don't want to discuss it. It's just not their area of expertise.
Nevertheless, it is an active area of study. No-one's dodging the question, as a quick google search will confirm.

 

[rusra02]

The theory of evolution, for the hundredth time, pertains to change in already extant life.

The original biogenesis is another matter entirely, but no-one investigating it is proposing an effect without a cause or something from nothing. These are creationist tenets. It's creationists that believe 'magic poofing' is a reasonable hypothesis.

Why do you say evolutionists never want to discuss the absolute beginning? First, keep in mind that the "absolute beginning" is the purview of physics and chemistry, not evolutionary biology. Saying evolutionists don't want to discuss it is like saying automotive engineers don't want to discuss it. It's just not their area of expertise.
Nevertheless, it is an active area of study. No-one's dodging the question, as a quick google search will confirm.

but no-one investigating it is proposing an effect without a cause or something from nothing. The point is, that is what evolution proponents are doing when they say the remarkable, nay, astounding complexity in even the smallest living organism happened without a cause. Then compound this to say all the complexity, complexity we are only at the beginning of understanding, is the product of blind chance. THEN argue that ToE proponents are not saying God didn't start life... Sorry, I'm too far down the rabbit hole as it is. Time to climb back to the light of day.

 

[gnostic]

It may be comforting to you to dismiss the Bible history of Babel as 'fairy-tale'. So many others have thus dismissed Bible accounts that later were confirmed by archeological finds. There are thousands of languages and dialects, and the Bible explains why. Archaeologist Sir Henry Rawlinson said that “if we were to be thus guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated."—Gen. 11:1-9.

According to the Genesis, different languages existed some times between the birth of Abraham and before he left Haran at age 75. Perhaps he was present when it happen. The Genesis give no clear time to when the event of the tower of babel happened. But you have to remember that there was only 291 years had passed, between the time Noah disembark from the ark and from the time of Abraham's birth (19th century BC). Or 366 years between Noah's disembarkment and Abraham leaving Haran (18th century BC). It may seemed a lot but not very long time.

In any event, evidences showed that different languages existed before the Babel. In fact, different languages existed before the supposed global Flood.

So crediting the bible accuracy with regards to the tower of babel would showed that you have no understanding of ancient languages and writings. It's a complete joke to think that the tower of babel have any historical value.

In the 3rd millennium BC (hence before babel), there were Egyptian, Nubian, Amorite, Elamite, Eblaite, Hurrian, Akkadian, Sumerian languages. And these are just languages that have writings. Who know many more languages existed.

One of the great civilisations in the Aegean is the Minoan Crete. Though, their writing didn't appeared until the mid-2nd millennium BC, they had flourishing civilisation in the 3rd millennium BC. Bronze Age began in Crete around 2600 BC. There are evidences that people inhabiting Crete as far back as 7000 BC, a pre-ceramic Neolithic farming settlements; a couple of millennia before the supposed creation of Adam.

 

[johnhanks]

It may be comforting to you to dismiss the Bible history of Babel as 'fairy-tale'. So many others have thus dismissed Bible accounts that later were confirmed by archeological finds. There are thousands of languages and dialects, and the Bible explains why. Archaeologist Sir Henry Rawlinson said that “if we were to be thus guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated."—Gen. 11:1-9.

This would be the Sir Henry Rawlinson who died in 1895? A scholar, as I understand it, of Ancient Near Eastern languages, but not of linguistics on any larger scale.

You would do better to read Steven Pinker.

 

[AxisMundi]

And the theory of evolution pertains to a beginning of something being created from nothing or an effect without a cause. An unknown. Of course evolutionists never want to discuss the absolute beginning, and for very good reason.

Speaking of ignorance...

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two distinctly different topics. The former deals with how life formed, the latter deals with how life evolved to present day examples.

Evolution has centuries of investigation and peer review, libraries jamb packed full of data, and museums stocked to the rafters with hard physical evidence.

Sorry, but Evolution is a proven fact.

While abiogenesis is still under investigation, many inroads have been made into illustrating how life began on the planet. Considering that the early Earth wasn't the lifeless rock many anti-evolutionists contend, it is only a matter of time before one of the many hypothesis is proven correct.

Amino acids, the most basic building blocks of life, are among the most abundant substances in the Universe. Hydrogen and Oxygen, the components of water, are, repectfully, the two most abundant gases in the Universe.

The only question that remains is how these conditions evolved very simple life forms that eventually Evolved into life as we know it today.

 

[AxisMundi]

It may be comforting to you to dismiss the Bible history of Babel as 'fairy-tale'. So many others have thus dismissed Bible accounts that later were confirmed by archeological finds. There are thousands of languages and dialects, and the Bible explains why. Archaeologist Sir Henry Rawlinson said that “if we were to be thus guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated."—Gen. 11:1-9.

Please feel free to list some of these "archaeologically confirmed" biblical myths.

But keep one thing in mind, so you don't waste our time (further).

Finding an ancient village that's mentioned in the bible doesn't make the bible infallible.

Being a Civil War Living Historian, as a past hobby, I could write a rather convincing tale concerning CW era Richmond, VA. Doesn't mean I was there, and it doesn't mean I am accurate just because Richmond exists. I have no degrees in history, as I said, it was a hobby.

Each and every myth in the bible is easily dismissed through simple sciences, rational thinking, and/or self-contradictions found elsewhere.

 

[AxisMundi]

but no-one investigating it is proposing an effect without a cause or something from nothing. The point is, that is what evolution proponents are doing when they say the remarkable, nay, astounding complexity in even the smallest living organism happened without a cause. Then compound this to say all the complexity, complexity we are only at the beginning of understanding, is the product of blind chance. THEN argue that ToE proponents are not saying God didn't start life... Sorry, I'm too far down the rabbit hole as it is. Time to climb back to the light of day.

Only Creationist/ID proponents state "blind chance", not "Evolutionists".

Evolution is the steady adaptation of a species as it enters a new environmental niche in the never ending quest for new and abundant food sources and protection from predators and the elements.

 

[johnhanks]

I just dont believe for one second..that the entire Earth (the ENTIRE EARTH flooded ) and only one man that built a a boat big enough to save the entire animal species and his family of what?Repopulated the entire world.And if you go with dates he and his family must have had about a 20 second gestation period for each birth.As with the animals.

Humans and all animals would have just started laying 100's of eggs in fact like spiders.And those hundreds of spiders would lay 100's of eggs before they were a month old.

Just for amusement I plugged some figures into a basic population dynamics model and found that eight people could leave a million descendants in 700 years if, throughout that time, girls started having babies at 12 and had more or less the same reproductive capacity as aphids.

Trouble is, a million isn't nearly enough to account for all world populations at 1700 BCE...

 

[Autodidact]

It may be comforting to you to dismiss the Bible history of Babel as 'fairy-tale'. So many others have thus dismissed Bible accounts that later were confirmed by archeological finds. There are thousands of languages and dialects, and the Bible explains why. Archaeologist Sir Henry Rawlinson said that “if we were to be thus guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated."—Gen. 11:1-9.

In what year did he make that remark?

 

[Autodidact]

but no-one investigating it is proposing an effect without a cause or something from nothing. The point is, that is what evolution proponents are doing when they say the remarkable, nay, astounding complexity in even the smallest living organism happened without a cause. Then compound this to say all the complexity, complexity we are only at the beginning of understanding, is the product of blind chance. THEN argue that ToE proponents are not saying God didn't start life... Sorry, I'm too far down the rabbit hole as it is. Time to climb back to the light of day.

Oh, I see the problem. You have absolutely no idea what the Theory of Evolution says. Would you like to learn, or do you prefer to continue to disbelieve a non-existent theory?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And the theory of evolution pertains to a beginning of something being created from nothing or an effect without a cause.

It does not....:sarcastic

And it's clear....especially now, you know absolutely nothing of what evolution says. Evolution is about change in existing life. It has noting to do with the beginning per se. If you were referring to Abiogenisis then you might have a case. Evolution is not about the beginning and it does adhere to the cause/effect rule.

evolutionists

What is an evolutionist? This appears to be a term designed by creationist. When you use that term that they coined it basically shows that you have succumbed to "power of suggestion"......as you so conveniently accused others of in this forum.

Of course evolutionists never want to discuss the absolute beginning, and for very good reason.

"Biologist" have hypothesized about the origins of life but remain inconclusive due to lack of evidence on the matter and have rightfully stated that the beginning, for now, is an unknown. It would be helpful in the future for you to go and brush up on the ToE because you appear to not know very little about it.