|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:45 pm
villiancat froggergirliee What are your sources? The only "Great Flood" that I've ever leaned about was during the pliestocene era when most of the western hemisphere was under water. But as the continents drifted and mountians rose, sea level dropped. Also there are no personal accounts from the so called survivors of the "Great Flood". All accounts are based on myth and the discovery of aquatic fossils at high altitudes which led people who believed that the earth did not change to conclude that there was a flood. There's images of it all over the anchient world sordid in myths and such. Are you implying that because there's "images" I'm supposed to be convinced? Not gonna happen. Your comment makes no sense at all.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:06 pm
the 'Great Flood' covered the whole world according to the people telling the stories...because that was the whole world to them. They hadn't been to the americas, or even easten Asia and parts of north Europe and south Africa. Mesopotamia was their world...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:22 am
Well, if there was a great flood like the bible tells it, some amazing things were happening.
-For one, in the bible it states, "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered", so there must have been 10-20 thousand feet of water on the Earth's surface. To produce a flood of this size in 40 days and 40 nights, it must have rained, on average, 15 feet of water (vertically) in 1 hour.
But that amount of rain is enough to sink an aircraft carrier, let alone a wooden ark filled with billions of animals (two for every species...)
-There are literally thousands of freshwater species of fish for whom exposure to salt water would be fatal. A worldwide deluge would have wiped out freshwater environments by blending it with ocean water.
-Gen 8:11 says, "And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off..." Given that the world was covered for a very long time by raging waters, terrestrial vegetation would not have survived. There could be no living olive trees, and certainly none with leaves attached for the plucking.
-Predators don't exist in a one-to-one relationship with their prey. For each predator, many individual prey animals have to exist in order to maintain a stable balance. With only two of their prey species alive, how did these predators survive?
-Many species of germs are species-specific ("conspecific"). They can live only if they can find a host of just one species. They survive by hopping from host to host as each host specimen either dies or develops resistance. If only two of each "kind" were on the ark, then either the disease or the host species itself would have become extinct (since as one of the two animals died or became immune, it would have jumped to its mate, which would also have died or become immune). Yet, these species and their associated diseases are here today. This disease problem is especially applicable to humans: infectious life forms that can exist only in humans include measles, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, pneumococcal pneumonia, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. All of these would have to have been present in some or all of the handful of people on the ark and without killing them or being wiped out by their immune response.
-Not only is this last point a problem for the literal interpretation of the Ark story, but it raises a question about the Creation story itself. Creationists seem committed to the idea that there was just one act of Creation. But if this is true, then diseases like small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea must have been created with Adam and Eve, before the Fall. If they were created as a result of the Fall, then there was a second act of Creation; if not, then these deadly diseases must have existed in the Garden Eden before Original Sin. Even if the Creationist wants to argue that God fundamentally redesigned some earlier, friendly microorganism into these new organisms that can live only by feeding on humans, it stills leaves us with the creation of a new kind, regardless of whether it was created from nothing or from an earlier kind. You either have an instance of a second creation act, or an instance of speciation occurring after the first creation act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:50 am
gigacannon Scientists and historians I believe speculate that it might have been the Black Sea. Yes, I believe it is. I forget my source, but I've read that archaeologists are finding small villages or something of the sort on ancient shores under that sea. A few more things about the flood: 1.) Why didn't the Egyptians, whose civilization was at its heigt during the flood period, take notice of the flood, become completely destroyed, and have to start again from nothing? Why didn't they record it? 2.) How did Noah gather all the animals, from all over the world? 3.) Contingent had pointed out that freshwater fish would have been killed off by the flood. They could, of course, re-emerge through evolution, but the time allowed by the Genesis story is much shorter than the time it would actually take the fish to evolve. Species would evolve more rapidly in concordance to the Genesis story than they do in evolutionary biology. But, somehow, Creationists believe that evolution is limited within "kinds"--that while evolution can happen more rapidly than it does (in order to accomodate the flood story), it has barriers preventing macroevolution. That is, either, in spite of the fact that many small changes could occur rapidly, there is some sort of barrier that stops any more small changes from occuring once a maximum difference is reached between an organism and its anscestor, or there are genes which, for some reason, can't mutate. 4.) Creationists claim that the world was more 'level' during the flood: the mountains were really hills and the oceans were shallow... making deep sea fish non-existant before the flood, and requiring them to evolve after the flood. Really quickly. 5.) The flood would kill off nearly all of the world's plants. How did every single living species of terrestrial plants evolve within a few thousand years? While obeying the barriers that prevent macroevolution? 6.) How could a male and its mate of every species (or kind, or whatever) be boarded onto the ship when there are parthenogenic species (ie, reproduce asexually) and species which are comprised entirely of females? 7.) As Contingent pointed out, predators don't exist in one-to-one ratios with their prey (this would cause the prey to be eaten, and the preadators to be without food). Creationists sometimes claim that predators ate vegatation then (even though no vegitation could have existed, having been killed off by the flood and all). So the now-predators would have had to rapidly evolved from the herbivors they once were, acquiring all of the characteristics which make preying easier (ie, sharp teeth, keen eyesight, claws, speed), and prey would need to evolve to acquire all of the characteristics allowing them to escape more easily from predators (ie, cameflouge, speed). This poses an even greater problem for the flood story when the dinos are brought into it. Not only would the T-Rex and various other dinosaur predators have to have evolved from herbivor anscestors within a short amount of time, but they'd have even less time than modern species, as they'd have to become extinct early on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:45 am
Creationist often say that there are flood stories all around the world that are supposed to have happened at the same time as the great flood. However, the corroborating story could only have read, 'It rained some more today. If this keeps up, we're all going to die'. This could relate to any flood that ever happened anywhere in the world, and it lacks a time frame, AND it would have had to have been recorded in stone, since paints would have washed off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:54 am
i know the issue of space was brought up already (i agree that there wasn't enough space), but noone has talked about that noah and his family were also on that ark. that must have been uncomfortable being crammed in there with all those animals. i'm also curious about what happens to all the biological waste that all the organisms produced, including the humans on that ark. did they just dump it out of a porthole on the side of the ark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:52 am
Flamsmark contrary to the speculation on this guild's homepage, a flood of that sort did occur. it was noted in many religious and non-religious historical texts of that time. the idea that every animal in existance was saved via one boat is perhaps a step too far. perhaps this myth derives from one early zooligist who attempted to save as many species as he could? nonetheless there almost-cetainly was a great flood. and people almost certainly built boats and rafts or did whatever they could to escape it. dude, floods happen all the time, look at tsunamis they've even happened in the UK, could these floods mentioned just be some local floods which happened around the same time but not at exactly the same time as historical records can be fuzzy about dates, this seems logical
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:55 am
dali_kura i know the issue of space was brought up already (i agree that there wasn't enough space), but noone has talked about that noah and his family were also on that ark. that must have been uncomfortable being crammed in there with all those animals. i'm also curious about what happens to all the biological waste that all the organisms produced, including the humans on that ark. did they just dump it out of a porthole on the side of the ark? there's a funny story abt that (don't take it seriously, i'm not anti anyone) "after 39 days and nights on the ark the animals had produced massive a pile of excrement which was stinking up the ship, so noah and his family pushed it overboard. in 1492 Christopher Columbus landed on it and called it America"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:49 pm
Austin1300 dali_kura i know the issue of space was brought up already (i agree that there wasn't enough space), but noone has talked about that noah and his family were also on that ark. that must have been uncomfortable being crammed in there with all those animals. i'm also curious about what happens to all the biological waste that all the organisms produced, including the humans on that ark. did they just dump it out of a porthole on the side of the ark? there's a funny story abt that (don't take it seriously, i'm not anti anyone) "after 39 days and nights on the ark the animals had produced massive a pile of excrement which was stinking up the ship, so noah and his family pushed it overboard. in 1492 Christopher Columbus landed on it and called it America" haha! i like that explanation. domokun <-- *laughing*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:21 am
Karasene Let's say the arc was that side and that for arguement's sake dinosaurs were alive at the same time as humans 1 thing tho, if dinosaurs were alive in the biblical era would they not be mentioned in the bible?? something that big with sharp pointy teeth (does monty python style actions) also, a crocodile... if you tried getting that into the arc (i know they can swim bear with me here) they are gonna try to eat practically everything, now add the dinosaurs into this, noah would probably've been eaten, btw the Sauropods weighed between 7 and 50 tons, no way is any boat of human construction in that era gonna hold 2 of evry animal including the dinosaurs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:42 am
some of you are forgetting the first and most important part. You can not re-populate the would with one male and one female of any spicies. What about ducks. shouldn't Ducks rule the world you can't drown a duck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:05 pm
MieShue some of you are forgetting the first and most important part. You can not re-populate the would with one male and one female of any spicies. What about ducks. shouldn't Ducks rule the world you can't drown a duck. he's right, i've tried blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:41 pm
Austin1300 Karasene Let's say the arc was that side and that for arguement's sake dinosaurs were alive at the same time as humans 1 thing tho, if dinosaurs were alive in the biblical era would they not be mentioned in the bible?? something that big with sharp pointy teeth (does monty python style actions) also, a crocodile... if you tried getting that into the arc (i know they can swim bear with me here) they are gonna try to eat practically everything, now add the dinosaurs into this, noah would probably've been eaten, btw the Sauropods weighed between 7 and 50 tons, no way is any boat of human construction in that era gonna hold 2 of evry animal including the dinosaurs If the Bible had mentioned every animal that ever lived on the Earth, it would be a vast biological library, and all that stuff about Jesus and morality would be summed up as a rather astonishing typo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:56 am
gigacannon Austin1300 Karasene Let's say the arc was that side and that for arguement's sake dinosaurs were alive at the same time as humans 1 thing tho, if dinosaurs were alive in the biblical era would they not be mentioned in the bible?? something that big with sharp pointy teeth (does monty python style actions) also, a crocodile... if you tried getting that into the arc (i know they can swim bear with me here) they are gonna try to eat practically everything, now add the dinosaurs into this, noah would probably've been eaten, btw the Sauropods weighed between 7 and 50 tons, no way is any boat of human construction in that era gonna hold 2 of evry animal including the dinosaurs If the Bible had mentioned every animal that ever lived on the Earth, it would be a vast biological library, and all that stuff about Jesus and morality would be summed up as a rather astonishing typo. lol yeah, maybe a small footnote
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:25 am
Flamsmark contrary to the speculation on this guild's homepage, a flood of that sort did occur. it was noted in many religious and non-religious historical texts of that time. the idea that every animal in existance was saved via one boat is perhaps a step too far. perhaps this myth derives from one early zooligist who attempted to save as many species as he could? nonetheless there almost-cetainly was a great flood. and people almost certainly built boats and rafts or did whatever they could to escape it. If you talking about the "great flood" that occurs in the bible then you talking about the same flood that occured in the Epic of gilgamesh which has been transfered to other stories and other religious movement including the bible and the story of Noah (someone ought to sue for copyright infingement scream ). Well there was a greaat flood that flooded the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Pursian Gulf to the poit where the waters of the persian gulf had reached into what is modern day Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. It didn't flood the entire world, but it did flood what was to them (Gilgamesh and his compatriats) the known world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
