The Ark

[Noir]

Good eve, just a quick question.

When Noah was on his arc he sent out a bird before he sent out the dove that came back with the olive branch, is it mentioned what type of bird it is?

[Immanuel]

A Raven

Gen 8:6-8


6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

Immie

[Noir]

A Raven

Gen 8:6-8



Immie

Okie pokes, my follow up was going to query if that bird survied or not, but it seems so.

Cheers immie.

[PostmodernProphet]

Okie pokes, my follow up was going to query if that bird survied or not, but it seems so.

Cheers immie.

general consensus is that they were all dead by 1000 BC.......

[darin]

dinosaurs and the like were probably on the ark too - but due to the climate change after the flood, the big reptiles died out shortly thereafter.

[5stringJeff]

How could dinosuars be on the Ark when a) dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and b) many dinosaurs were as long as the ark itself?

[Noir]

How could dinosuars be on the Ark when a) dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and b) many dinosaurs were as long as the ark itself?


Oh dear, don't tell me it's spelt 'ark'

As for your question, while I agree with you normal responses I get o such questions are a) carbon dating is inaccurate and b) who is to say the dino's were fully grown? They could have been babies.

[5stringJeff]

Oh dear, don't tell me it's spelt 'ark'

As for your question, while I agree with you normal responses I get o such questions are a) carbon dating is inaccurate and b) who is to say the dino's were fully grown? They could have been babies.

It is spelled "ark." An 'arc' is a portion of a circle. An 'ark' is a big boat.

[Yurt]

How could dinosuars be on the Ark when a) dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and b) many dinosaurs were as long as the ark itself?

a) carbon dating would be different before the flood

b) maybe they weren't adults

c) it is possible that God narrowed the field in the second verse

19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

[crin63]

The climate of the earth was different before the flood which is why people lived longer. That also means animals and reptiles lived longer. Dinosaurs were in all likelihood just lizards that lived for hundreds of years and continued to grow, up until the time of the flood.

There was also no reason to take mature animals on the ark. They could have been babies or even eggs that were incubated.

[Yurt]

interestingly the bible says of every kind, not necessarily of every subkind if you will, so maybe the lizard family, but not all the lizards, say the t-rex or something.

[crin63]

interestingly the bible says of every kind, not necessarily of every subkind if you will, so maybe the lizard family, but not all the lizards, say the t-rex or something.

Thats a good point. There may only been a pair of wolves and as the specie spread out and adapted to its environment we ended up with dogs.

[Noir]

Thats a good point. There may only been a pair of wolves and as the specie spread out and adapted to its environment we ended up with dogs.


So much evolution in such a short time?

Also I often hear the arguement that the atmosphere was different before the flood, and so people lived longer, why?

[Gaffer]

So after the ark settled in Turkey how did the kangaroo, platypus and salt water crocks get to Australia? How did the penguins get to Antarctica?

If there is no such thing as evolution how does a wolf become a dog?

There is not enough water on the earth to completely flood the world, even if you melt all the ice caps. There is nothing inaccurate about carbon dating except that it doesn't jib with fundamentalist doctrine, so it must be attacked.

The writings of a primitive ignorant people from over 2000 years ago, that was passed down orally for thousands of years before that is taken as truth, while the science of geology, geography and archeology are blown off as inaccurate by so called modern people just amazes me. The first clue is, the world is NOT flat. The moon orbits the earth. The earth orbits the sun. It's part of a solar system. The stars are so far away that the light we see from them took millions and billions of our years to reach us. Primitive societies, such as the writers of the bible didn't understand this. It seems even today certain people don't understand this.

My argument is not whether there is a creator or not. It's that there is physical fact that science can show and prove. And one of those facts is that dinosaurs were long dead before man ever came along. Noah's ark is a myth based on a single occurrence in a small area of the planet. Nothing more than that.

[5stringJeff]

a) carbon dating would be different before the flood

b) maybe they weren't adults

c) it is possible that God narrowed the field in the second verse

19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

How would carbon dating be different? If there was the same amount of carbon-14 present on Earth before and after the flood, carbon dating would not be affected. Not to mention, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. This is well past the range of carbon dating.

[PostmodernProphet]

So after the ark settled in Turkey how did the kangaroo, platypus and salt water crocks get to Australia? How did the penguins get to Antarctica?

If there is no such thing as evolution how does a wolf become a dog?

There is not enough water on the earth to completely flood the world, even if you melt all the ice caps. There is nothing inaccurate about carbon dating except that it doesn't jib with fundamentalist doctrine, so it must be attacked.

The writings of a primitive ignorant people from over 2000 years ago, that was passed down orally for thousands of years before that is taken as truth, while the science of geology, geography and archeology are blown off as inaccurate by so called modern people just amazes me. The first clue is, the world is NOT flat. The moon orbits the earth. The earth orbits the sun. It's part of a solar system. The stars are so far away that the light we see from them took millions and billions of our years to reach us. Primitive societies, such as the writers of the bible didn't understand this. It seems even today certain people don't understand this.

My argument is not whether there is a creator or not. It's that there is physical fact that science can show and prove. And one of those facts is that dinosaurs were long dead before man ever came along. Noah's ark is a myth based on a single occurrence in a small area of the planet. Nothing more than that.

what puzzles me is, since you are apparently smart enough to realize that Noah didn't need to bring both wolves and dogs in the ark, you still think he had to bring dinosaurs......

now, recognizing that not only the Hebrews, but virtually every other civilization that has ever existed on earth has an oral history of a universal flood, is it within the realm of your perception that everyone who exists today stems from an ancestor that survived a flood?.....and that just maybe his name was Noah in Hebrew?......after all....if you and your family are the world's only survivors of a flood in the Middle East, does it really matter to you that the Himalyas stayed dry?......I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other night and this expert on genetics was saying everyone in the world is genetically derived from a single male on the continent of Africa within the last 50,000 years.....maybe his name was Noah, too........

perhaps the reason humanity migrated from Africa to Europe and Asia was the need for food after all the animals in the area died in a flood.....after all, how long could seven people survive on the offspring of the animals on the ark?......

[Gaffer]

what puzzles me is, since you are apparently smart enough to realize that Noah didn't need to bring both wolves and dogs in the ark, you still think he had to bring dinosaurs......

now, recognizing that not only the Hebrews, but virtually every other civilization that has ever existed on earth has an oral history of a universal flood, is it within the realm of your perception that everyone who exists today stems from an ancestor that survived a flood?.....and that just maybe his name was Noah in Hebrew?......after all....if you and your family are the world's only survivors of a flood in the Middle East, does it really matter to you that the Himalyas stayed dry?......I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other night and this expert on genetics was saying everyone in the world is genetically derived from a single male on the continent of Africa within the last 50,000 years.....maybe his name was Noah, too........

perhaps the reason humanity migrated from Africa to Europe and Asia was the need for food after all the animals in the area died in a flood.....after all, how long could seven people survive on the offspring of the animals on the ark?......

Your first sentences makes no sense to me. Where did I say he brought dinosaurs on the ark?

Many cultures have flood stories. Therefore there may be some basis for a flood somewhere. It could be tied into the Atlantis myths. Myths and stories spring up throughout history because of ignorant people trying to explain something beyond their understanding. Even today we try to explain things that we really don't comprehend. That's why the term theory is used until things are proven as fact.

[crin63]

So much evolution in such a short time?

Also I often hear the arguement that the atmosphere was different before the flood, and so people lived longer, why?

Its adaptation to environment. It doesn't take many generations for animals and people to adapt.

The atmosphere had a mist/cloud cover which kept out uv rays and held in oxygen. It was a much more oxygen rich environment.

[Gaffer]

Its adaptation to environment. It doesn't take many generations for animals and people to adapt.

The atmosphere had a mist/cloud cover which kept out uv rays and held in oxygen. It was a much more oxygen rich environment.

And this is proven how?

[Noir]

Its adaptation to environment. It doesn't take many generations for animals and people to adapt.

The atmosphere had a mist/cloud cover which kept out uv rays and held in oxygen. It was a much more oxygen rich environment.

Indeed they may well adapt to the enviroment, but the thing is they would have all been in the same environent, as they would have all got of the ark. Let's take dogs for example, how did a dog that got of the ark in the area around Egypt, get to Canada to become a snow wolf? And how did ants get all over the world in only 6000 years? (you could go throgb a list of endless animals that can I only travel by land and wonder how they got were they are, and adapted, in 6000) years.

As for this atmosphere thing, it all seems very odd, so the amosphere was really clogged with water vapour, and had been since the days of the garden of Eden, this protected folk from UV light. Then god made it all rain down, lessening the % of water in the atmosphere, and then instead of putting it back he just made it disapear? Am I right?

[PostmodernProphet]

Myths and stories spring up throughout history because of ignorant people trying to explain something beyond their understanding.

then it should be obvious that the flood was something experienced, that needed explaining....so much for rejecting the idea of the Flood.....


Let's take dogs for example, how did a dog that got of the ark in the area around Egypt, get to Canada to become a snow wolf?

???....you are looking at it backwards.....the canine that got off the ark was the ancestor of both the dog in Egypt and the wolf in Canada.....it didn't first become a dog in Egypt and then become a wolf in Canada....


And how did ants get all over the world in only 6000 years? (you could go throgb a list of endless animals that can I only travel by land and wonder how they got were they are, and adapted, in 6000) years.


why 6000 years?....that isn't scriptural, it comes from the imagination of a mathmatician in the 1800s.....but in any event, it didn't take a thousand years to breed both St Bernards and Shitzus from the wild dogs of Egypt, so why are you complaining about 6000?......

[Noir]

???....you are looking at it backwards.....the canine that got off the ark was the ancestor of both the dog in Egypt and the wolf in Canada.....it didn't first become a dog in Egypt and then become a wolf in Canada....

Right I'll word what I said a different way.

There was an animal on the ark that would become a snow wolf that we now find in Canada.

How did this animal that got of the ark get to Canada?

Infact how did any animal that can only travel by land get to America, Canada and Mexico ect?


why 6000 years?....that isn't scriptural, it comes from the imagination of a mathmatician in the 1800s.....but in any event, it didn't take a thousand years to breed both St Bernards and Shitzus from the wild dogs of Egypt, so why are you complaining about 6000?......

I know not were 6000 years comes from, but it's the length of time that everyone seems to discus when talking about the flood.

My questions relate more the how the animals would have been able to pouplate the world, even parts that should be completly cut off from the livng animals by thousands of miles of ocean.

Also, why did plants get a free pass? Where they just invincible for the 40 days?

[Abbey Marie]

Noir, do you want me to fix the spelling of the title?

[PostmodernProphet]

Right I'll word what I said a different way.

There was an animal on the ark that would become a snow wolf that we now find in Canada.

How did this animal that got of the ark get to Canada?

Infact how did any animal that can only travel by land get to America, Canada and Mexico ect?

the same way that people got to Canada and the rest of North America.....general theory is land/ice bridge between Russia and North America....

is it your theory that the animals in North America evolved completely independently from those in Asia?.....if so, how do you account for the similarities?.....


I know not were 6000 years comes from, but it's the length of time that everyone seems to discus when talking about the flood.


no, its a number that unbelievers like to bandy about when they want to mock people who believe......it has no relationship to any teaching of Christianity, or any scriptural doctrine....it's just something atheists like to chuckle about.....




My questions relate more the how the animals would have been able to populate the world

I expect the same way they populated the world under the theory of evolution.....unless you are arguing that the canines that populate Asia are completely unrelated to the canines that populate North America....in which case I guess I have even more to chuckle about than the folks who chuckle about "6000 years"......



Also, why did plants get a free pass? Where they just invincible for the 40 days?

have you ever seen a seed sprout in the spring, after being buried under a pile of snow for six months?......

[Noir]

Righto, as I am on my phone I can't multi quote, so to try and save making many posts in a row I shall try and put them into one. And in advance I must say that at times my spelling is bad enough, but is made worse by the use of my phone, ergo sorry for the spelling mistakes that I am sure will follow in their droves.

@Abbey, please if you could, atleast it'll make sense then

@PMP
I believe that as life has evolved over millions of years, land that was once connected seperated, this lead to animals being cut of from the same type, and in their new evviroments they developed diffrently.

As fir crossing the ice bridge, did ants cross this ice bridge? What about wasps and every other land based animal in the Americas? They were all able to cross Russia and the giant ice bridge?

As for the 6000 year thing again, I have plenty of experience of christains using this date, so I don't know why they would be using it If it was detremental to their agruement, do there must be some logic to chosing 6000 years ago.

Personally I have never seen a seed spring to like after spending 6 months in the snow, however I do not doubt that it happens, and it is clear that that seed has adapted to survive in whatever condictions it lives, but this can not be said for all plants, just look at what happens to a sunflower seed after it is left in snow for 6 months, or a pineapple seed ect ect. Just becuase some plants can survive in extreme condictions, but not every land plant, infact I'm sure 99.99% of land plants would not be able to survive 40 days with no light, drowned in water, and crushed under the vast vast quantity of water, and yet Noah was not asked to take 2 types of every plant, they just, er, were fine for seemingly no reason.

Also I did not see a reply to my question as to why all the water that was kept in the atmosphere pre-flood, just disapeared.

[PostmodernProphet]

As for the 6000 year thing again, I have plenty of experience of christains using this date, so I don't know why they would be using it If it was detremental to their agruement, do there must be some logic to chosing 6000 years ago.
.

??.....quite frankly, I doubt you have much experience arguing with Christians who believe in a 6000 year old creation....unless you have argued a whole lot with one person who believes it......young-earth creationists are quite rare....perhaps 1-2% of Christians.....



Personally I have never seen a seed spring to like after spending 6 months in the snow,


gosh, I'm sure glad I don't live where you live....all grey and bleak and stoney.....you should move somewhere where plants come back after winter, it's a lot more fun......think of it this way....New Orleans was flooded....do you think every blade of grass in New Orleans is gone forever until someone comes along and replants grass?......



Also I did not see a reply to my question as to why all the water that was kept in the atmosphere pre-flood, just disapeared.
??...what water, atmosphere..../boggle, you lost me.....the assumption you make (which is unjustified in any interpretation of scripture) is that at the time of the flood there were people living everywhere in the world and you couldn't kill all of them unless you had water higher than the Himalyas.....if all the people in the world lived in your back yard you only need to flood your back yard to kill them, right?.....

[Noir]

@abbey :beer:


@PMP

Erm, I'm sorry but I have, I guess it's my fault for knowning too may folk who argue the earth is only 6000 years old, but my auntie is member of the west free presbytarians and they all think it was 6000 years ago.

As for the plants, it's not the lack of plants, but the lack of snow, we badly ever get any snow, the last time we had proper snow that lasted a few days was 1997 if I memo right, cue I had a go-kart for Christmas that year but couldn't go out on it cue of snow, but that's about the high of it.

You in no way addressed how the pants would have survived no light, being crushed for a month and a half.

You seem to now have droped the whole animals apearing in different contries after I gave a reasonable explination. And made no attempt to defend your own idea of animals making their way across thousands of miles of barron ice-land.

As for the water/atmosphere, it was argueed that there was a build up of water vapour in the atmosphere, that protected those living before the flood from UV light, and was the water that was used for the flood, but after the flood it, er, vanished?

[PostmodernProphet]

You in no way addressed how the pants would have survived no light, being crushed for a month and a half.

dude, I'll keep this simple for you.....plants die every year and they come back from seeds....even if the flood killed every plant in the world, there are enough seeds in the soil for them to start all over....



You seem to now have droped the whole animals apearing in different contries after I gave a reasonable explination. And made no attempt to defend your own idea of animals making their way across thousands of miles of barron ice-land.

lol, the point is, whether they were all created or whether they evolved, getting from one place to the other remains a problem for both....thus, it is irrelevant to the discussion.....


As for the water/atmosphere, it was argueed that there was a build up of water vapour in the atmosphere, that protected those living before the flood from UV light, and was the water that was used for the flood, but after the flood it, er, vanished?


/shrugs....since I don't agree with the theory, I don't see why I should bother to defend it....

and finally, I suspect a 6000 year old creation would be problematic, given the existence of cuniform tablets over 12,000 years old.....very few Christians are young earth creationists.....so using that to defend your argument has very limited effect......

personally, I'm a-creational (like in a-moral).....I figure if God is only going to devote two pages of the Bible to creation it wasn't that big of an issue to him.......thus it ought not be for me either.....so seven days or 7 million years it's all the same to me, 7 of one, 7/12ths of a dozen of the other.....

[-Cp]

@abbey :beer:


@PMP

Erm, I'm sorry but I have, I guess it's my fault for knowning too may folk who argue the earth is only 6000 years old, but my auntie is member of the west free presbytarians and they all think it was 6000 years ago.

As for the plants, it's not the lack of plants, but the lack of snow, we badly ever get any snow, the last time we had proper snow that lasted a few days was 1997 if I memo right, cue I had a go-kart for Christmas that year but couldn't go out on it cue of snow, but that's about the high of it.

You in no way addressed how the pants would have survived no light, being crushed for a month and a half.

You seem to now have droped the whole animals apearing in different contries after I gave a reasonable explination. And made no attempt to defend your own idea of animals making their way across thousands of miles of barron ice-land.

As for the water/atmosphere, it was argueed that there was a build up of water vapour in the atmosphere, that protected those living before the flood from UV light, and was the water that was used for the flood, but after the flood it, er, vanished?

There is a lot of evidence for a young Earth - including but not limited to:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years. This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

[Missileman]

then it should be obvious that the flood was something experienced, that needed explaining....so much for rejecting the idea of the Flood.....

There is a huge difference between a flood and The Flood. Floods occur in just about every region on the planet. It's hardly evidence of a global flood. Most ancient cultures came up with myths to explain weather, fire, the origin of man, etc. The ancient Jews are no exception and their mythology is no more real or accurate than the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Native American, etc.


Its adaptation to environment. It doesn't take many generations for animals and people to adapt.

The atmosphere had a mist/cloud cover which kept out uv rays and held in oxygen. It was a much more oxygen rich environment.

And for all your BS arguments you can't explain reasonably how in a few generations a handful of middle-eastern Jews migrated to the 4 corners of the globe, morphed into the various races, forgot their language, forgot their history, and forgot their GOD who had just wiped out every living thing on the planet.

[PostmodernProphet]

There is a huge difference between a flood and The Flood. Floods occur in just about every region on the planet. It's hardly evidence of a global flood. Most ancient cultures came up with myths to explain weather, fire, the origin of man, etc. The ancient Jews are no exception and their mythology is no more real or accurate than the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Native American, etc.

depends on what you mean by "global"......all 360 degrees of the compass, from pole to pole....or just everywhere there was a living human being at the time, which who knows.....may have been one valley in the Sinai Peninsula.....


forgot their history, and forgot their GOD
actually, according to Jeremiah, that only took a couple hundred years.....:thumb:

[Yurt]

There is a huge difference between a flood and The Flood. Floods occur in just about every region on the planet. It's hardly evidence of a global flood. Most ancient cultures came up with myths to explain weather, fire, the origin of man, etc. The ancient Jews are no exception and their mythology is no more real or accurate than the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Native American, etc.

does every culture tell of the big "fire"? what about the big "earthquake"?

how do you explain sea shells/fossils at extremely high altitudes?

[Missileman]

depends on what you mean by "global"......all 360 degrees of the compass, from pole to pole....or just everywhere there was a living human being at the time, which who knows.....may have been one valley in the Sinai Peninsula.....


They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

Sounds global to me. I do however understand your need to make excuses for the story.


does every culture tell of the big "fire"? what about the big "earthquake"?

Which big fire and big earthquake in the bible are you referring to ?


how do you explain sea shells/fossils at extremely high altitudes?

Are you kidding? Go to the library, find a book on basic geology. Take a gander at tectonic mountain creation.


actually, according to Jeremiah, that only took a couple hundred years.....:thumb:

And this makes sense to you? That a "jealous god" who demands center stage would, after achieving a 100% believer world population, sit back and ignore the rise of a myriad of civilizations that not only didn't believe, but had never even heard of him?

[Yurt]

OTE=Missileman;342095]Which big fire and big earthquake in the bible are you referring to ?

i wasn't. you indicated that it is no big deal every culture has a flood story, as there fires, etc... so i asked you if there are stories in pretty much every culture of those other calamities.


Are you kidding? Go to the library, find a book on basic geology. Take a gander at tectonic mountain creation.

already have, long time ago. it is as much theory as the bible. but you have the faith to mock me and tell me to go to the library. you have no factual evidence that the mountain did not rise dramitically because of the flood. the clams found on everest were closed, not open. do you need to go the library to know what the difference means?


11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

amazing the atlantic ridge huh....

in the end, this is just fun and games. i am cannot prove the flood and you cannot disprove the flood. you cannot prove life without god etc...

the discussions are good though, makes us think. it always amazes me how angry evolutionist get. i wonder if they are afraid that if God really exists.....


And this makes sense to you? That a "jealous god" who demands center stage would, after achieving a 100% believer world population, sit back and ignore the rise of a myriad of civilizations that not only didn't believe, but had never even heard of him?

are you married or have a girlfriend?

[Missileman]

i wasn't. you indicated that it is no big deal every culture has a flood story, as there fires, etc... so i asked you if there are stories in pretty much every culture of those other calamities.

The point is, you expect everyone to believe that all of these civilizations remembered the flood but forgot their jewish heritage, language, alphabet, GOD, etc. Sorry, it doesn't make any sense at all.



already have, long time ago. it is as much theory as the bible. but you have the faith to mock me and tell me to go to the library. you have no factual evidence that the mountain did not rise dramitically because of the flood. the clams found on everest were closed, not open. do you need to go the library to know what the difference means?

Don't know about you, but I've never seen a mountain GROW because it was wet. As for the clams, it's obviously possible for clams to die and become fossilized while closed...they are there. To contend that it can only happen if they are killed in a flood would be something for you to prove.


are you married or have a girlfriend?

Why, are you going to suggest that God is an irrational, hormonal female human?

[Yurt]

Why, are you going to suggest that God is an irrational, hormonal female human?

why, are you going to deny that God, who created us, might also love us so much that he wants us to himself?

do you really think that a "god" in your mind, would not want you and only you? do you really think it is petty that if you have a girlfriend/wife that you want her for yourself?

then tell me....there is no god, we are from apes, billions of years old.

what the fuck do you care if your woman sleeps around, it is evolution baby, the strongest survive. the animal world is full of it. would you share your woman? come on now, would you?

[Missileman]

why, are you going to deny that God, who created us, might also love us so much that he wants us to himself?

do you really think that a "god" in your mind, would not want you and only you? do you really think it is petty that if you have a girlfriend/wife that you want her for yourself?

then tell me....there is no god, we are from apes, billions of years old.

what the fuck do you care if your woman sleeps around, it is evolution baby, the strongest survive. the animal world is full of it. would you share your woman? come on now, would you?

Ummm...earth calling Yurt. THAT was my point. A self-declared "jealous god" having no problem with billions of non-believers makes no sense. Or are you suggesting that this "jealous god" isn't interested in everyone believing in him, just a certain few?

[Yurt]

Ummm...earth calling Yurt. THAT was my point. A self-declared "jealous god" having no problem with billions of non-believers makes no sense. Or are you suggesting that this "jealous god" isn't interested in everyone believing in him, just a certain few?

oh, sorry, i don't accept collect calls from "earth"...

why is it you won't answer my questions and expect me to answer yours?

[Missileman]

why is it you won't answer my questions and expect me to answer yours?

1. I am returning the favor
and
2. Your questions indicate a gross misunderstanding of mine.

[Yurt]

1. I am returning the favor
and
2. Your questions indicate a gross misunderstanding of mine.

i asked my questions first, if you don't like them and if they misrepresent, odd, as they are questions, then feel free to dispute them. but do try and answer them...if you don't, then dont' expect others to answer your "perfect" questions either.

[Yurt]

returning the favor?

what?

[Missileman]

returning the favor?

what?

To refresh your apparently short memory, in post 46, you didn't answer my question, you instead posed one of your own.

[PostmodernProphet]

Sounds global to me. I do however understand your need to make excuses for the story.

/shrugs....you call them excuses....but then, I'm not the one using YOUR interpretations, am I.....


And this makes sense to you? That a "jealous god" who demands center stage would, after achieving a 100% believer world population, sit back and ignore the rise of a myriad of civilizations that not only didn't believe, but had never even heard of him?

???....who hasn't heard of him....you've heard of him....what's your excuse....gonna claim ignorance?.....you make your choices.....


The point is, you expect everyone to believe that all of these civilizations remembered the flood but forgot their jewish heritage, language, alphabet, GOD, etc. Sorry, it doesn't make any sense at all.



lol....dude....there WAS no Jewish heritage until Abraham.....and as the Muslims have shown, it doesn't take long for them to forget their "jewish" heritage, eh?......

[Psychoblues]

And so do you, turkey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


???....who hasn't heard of him....you've heard of him....what's your excuse....gonna claim ignorance?.....you make your choices.....

What a shot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

Ummm...earth calling Yurt. THAT was my point. A self-declared "jealous god" having no problem with billions of non-believers makes no sense. Or are you suggesting that this "jealous god" isn't interested in everyone believing in him, just a certain few?

the fact that he gives you the freedom to choose doesn't mean he likes it when you fuck up the choice.......

[PostmodernProphet]

What a shot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


thanks.....though I'm surprised you're complimenting me.....

[Psychoblues]

I wasn't talking to you, pimp!!!!!!!!!


thanks.....though I'm surprised you're complimenting me.....

I was merely complimenting the other idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


'Scuse the confusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

I wasn't talking to you, pimp!!!!!!!!!



I was merely complimenting the other idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


'Scuse the confusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

well if you were complimenting the idiot, you certainly were confused....

[Missileman]

/shrugs....you call them excuses....but then, I'm not the one using YOUR interpretations, am I.....

My interpretation? Get a clue.


17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. , [c] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 [B]Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Is the bolded part true or not?

[Psychoblues]

With that in mind, I guess I was referring to you as well, pimp.



well if you were complimenting the idiot, you certainly were confused....

Do you get it?!?!!?!?!?!?!??! I doubt it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

???....who hasn't heard of him....you've heard of him....what's your excuse....gonna claim ignorance?.....you make your choices.....

The god of the jews was known to the ancient Chinese? Hindus? Nice try! No cigar!

[Missileman]

lol....dude....there WAS no Jewish heritage until Abraham.....and as the Muslims have shown, it doesn't take long for them to forget their "jewish" heritage, eh?......

Muslims claim they've never heard of Abraham? Really?

[Psychoblues]

I don't expect any answers on that subject from any self designated prophet, Mm.



Muslims claim they've never heard of Abraham? Really?

Really, do you?!?!?!?!???!??!?!

How 'bout a cool one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

the fact that he gives you the freedom to choose doesn't mean he likes it when you fuck up the choice.......

More excuses...go figure. You still haven't explained the total amnesia of all things Jewish by the supposed descendants of Noah.

[PostmodernProphet]

My interpretation? Get a clue.



Is the bolded part true or not?

I expect it was, otherwise it wouldn't have been stated......but YOUR interpretation demands that the entire surface of the earth was inundated, while mine just requires that all the people drowned.....


The god of the jews was known to the ancient Chinese? Hindus? Nice try! No cigar!

I'm talking about the choices YOU need to make.....God will work things out with the ancient Chinese in his own way, but YOU don't get their options, because you know enough to make your choices.....


Muslims claim they've never heard of Abraham? Really?

/rolls eyes....no....the exact opposite was my point.....they rejected their "jewish" heritage, so why would it be so surprising that civilizations thousands of years older would move even farther from YHWH....shucks, how many generations back was it that even YOUR ancestors believed in God, yet you pay no attention to him......


I don't expect any answers on that subject from any self designated prophet, Mm.



Psych....your rambling foolishness is annoying, yet tolerable when you are engaged in the debate.....

throwing your shit into real discussions that are above your head are not tolerable......stay out of it or I will stop treating you like a the proverbial four year old picking his nose while watching his parents talk......

[Missileman]

I expect it was, otherwise it wouldn't have been stated......but YOUR interpretation demands that the entire surface of the earth was inundated, while mine just requires that all the people drowned.....

A difference that has no significance except in your convoluted reasoning. Your argument is that flood stories in other civilizations is evidence FOR The Flood. If everyone on the planet were drowned, except those on the ark, then the only way those stories are told in those other civilizations is through the memories of descendants of the ark. These descendants in all of these other civilizations with a flood myth ALL remembered a flood, but ALL forgot Noah, the Ark, the god whose ire was responsible for the flood, the language, the customs, etc.


I'm talking about the choices YOU need to make.....God will work things out with the ancient Chinese in his own way, but YOU don't get their options, because you know enough to make your choices.....

Do you believe the ancient Chinese are descendants of those who survived on the ark or not?


/rolls eyes....no....the exact opposite was my point.....they rejected their "jewish" heritage, so why would it be so surprising that civilizations thousands of years older would move even farther from YHWH....shucks, how many generations back was it that even YOUR ancestors believed in God, yet you pay no attention to him......

But I've at least HEARD of him. Not a single smidge of anything common to the ark riders mentioned anywhere in the other ancient civilizations when it would have been very fresh in their memories had they been immediately descended from those on the ark.

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you believe the ancient Chinese are descendants of those who survived on the ark or not?

of course.....


These descendants in all of these other civilizations with a flood myth ALL remembered a flood, but ALL forgot Noah, the Ark, the god whose ire was responsible for the flood, the language, the customs, etc.

what was your great-grandfather's favorite food....did he like to sleep in or was he an early riser.....shucks, that's only four generations away and you don't know anything about him....


But I've at least HEARD of him. Not a single smidge of anything common to the ark riders mentioned anywhere in the other ancient civilizations when it would have been very fresh in their memories had they been immediately descended from those on the ark.

????....oral traditions passed down over what, a thousand, ten thousand generations?......get real.....

[Missileman]

what was your great-grandfather's favorite food....did he like to sleep in or was he an early riser.....shucks, that's only four generations away and you don't know anything about him....

And yet you continue to argue that these people remembered The Flood, but only The Flood...nonsense!


????....oral traditions passed down over what, a thousand, ten thousand generations?......get real.....

Hey genius, if things went down the way you believe, then the ark riders who morphed into Chinamen would only be a few generations removed from Noah and the event, not thousands. You'd expect to see at least a mention of Noah and an ark in the earliest Chinese artifacts.

[PostmodernProphet]

Hey genius, if things went down the way you believe, then the ark riders who morphed into Chinamen would only be a few generations removed from Noah and the event, not thousands. You'd expect to see at least a mention of Noah and an ark in the earliest Chinese artifacts.

lol....and how do you calculate it's "a few generations" according to what I believe?.......

[Missileman]

lol....and how do you calculate it's "a few generations" according to what I believe?.......

The Flood is purported to have occurred between 4000 and 5000 years ago. Chinese history goes back 5000 years, so the transition from Jew to Chinaman would have to have been very rapid...almost instantaneous even.

[Yurt]

To refresh your apparently short memory, in post 46, you didn't answer my question, you instead posed one of your own.

sometimes questions can be the best answer.


And this makes sense to you? That a "jealous god" who demands center stage would, after achieving a 100% believer world population, sit back and ignore the rise of a myriad of civilizations that not only didn't believe, but had never even heard of him?

my question was spot on and our posts afterward were on topic.

jealousy is not always a "bad" thing. and since you don't like questions....i am sure you share you girlfriend/wife with whomever....

see, questions aren't so bad, sometimes a question is better than a statement, as a statement can be considered an accusation.....

[Missileman]

sometimes questions can be the best answer.



my question was spot on and our posts afterward were on topic.

jealousy is not always a "bad" thing. and since you don't like questions....i am sure you share you girlfriend/wife with whomever....

see, questions aren't so bad, sometimes a question is better than a statement, as a statement can be considered an accusation.....

Let's get something clear...I never offered any statement as to whether jealousy is a good or bad thing, only that the god of the Bible is a self-proclaimed "jealous god". And as you apparently think that jealousy is motivation to NOT share some things, you should agree with the point I made that flew right over your head; that a "jealous god" would hardly stand by idly while these Jews he had plucked from oblivion roamed off across the globe to found civilizations and religions that worshipped a god other than himself.

[Yurt]

Let's get something clear...I never offered any statement as to whether jealousy is a good or bad thing, only that the god of the Bible is a self-proclaimed "jealous god". And as you apparently think that jealousy is motivation to NOT share some things, you should agree with the point I made that flew right over your head; that a "jealous god" would hardly stand by idly while these Jews he had plucked from oblivion roamed off across the globe to found civilizations and religions that worshipped a god other than himself.

well, let us be clear then:


That a "jealous god" who demands center stage would, after achieving a 100% believer world population, sit back and ignore the rise of a myriad of civilizations that not only didn't believe, but had never even heard of him?

so demanding center stage is a neutral for you? you meant nothing by that....so you sit back and IGNORE.....and that is neither a good or bad thing?

[Missileman]

well, let us be clear then:



so demanding center stage is a neutral for you? you meant nothing by that....so you sit back and IGNORE.....and that is neither a good or bad thing?

Demanding center stage is a paraphrase of "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Sitting back and ignoring is indeed neutral.

And sorry to disappoint you, but you haven't cleared up anything with this post. It has absolutely nothing to do with selectively-amnesiac, race-morphing, wandering Jews.

[Missileman]

my question was spot on and our posts afterward were on topic.

Your question offered no answer to my question, and you still haven't answered it.

[PostmodernProphet]

The Flood is purported to have occurred between 4000 and 5000 years ago. Chinese history goes back 5000 years, so the transition from Jew to Chinaman would have to have been very rapid...almost instantaneous even.

???....that's an absurd and arbitrary "purportion"........since science tells us from DNA that all humanity stems from a single male ancestor around 50,000 years ago, I suspect the flood happened 50,000 years ago.......

[Missileman]

???....that's an absurd and arbitrary "purportion"........since science tells us from DNA that all humanity stems from a single male ancestor around 50,000 years ago, I suspect the flood happened 50,000 years ago.......

Actually, science found a single female ancestor, not male. I wonder if you can recognize the significance of that.

http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm

They estimate her existence at 200,000 years ago, not 50,000.

So now for your myth to be true, four women survived The Flood, three of them died, daughterless, and the surviving woman was a second Eve. Funny that your myth makes no mention of a second Eve.

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, science found a single female ancestor, not male.

/shrugs....are you calling my female ancestor a whore?........and, as I stated in an earlier post.....someone on Discover channel last week was stating that we all had a single male ancestor within the last fifty thousand years.....

[Missileman]

/shrugs....are you calling my female ancestor a whore?........and, as I stated in an earlier post.....someone on Discover channel last week was stating that we all had a single male ancestor within the last fifty thousand years.....

Probably some dopey creationist...but feel free to post a link that refutes the one I posted.

[PostmodernProphet]

Probably some dopey creationist...but feel free to post a link that refutes the one I posted.

they don't allow creationists on the Discover channel...as I recall his claim was that the ability to think abstractly was an evolutionary step and that the first person to figure out tool use was the source of our current strain of humanity and that all other evolutionary strains of humanity died out.....he said all this stemmed from around 50,000 years ago....

be that as it may, I will use your data instead of mine, since it gives me an extra 150k years for the Chinese to forget their "jewish" heritage.....gosh that makes me chuckle.....you really thought Noah was "Jewish" didn't you......

[Missileman]

they don't allow creationists on the Discover channel...as I recall his claim was that the ability to think abstractly was an evolutionary step and that the first person to figure out tool use was the source of our current strain of humanity and that all other evolutionary strains of humanity died out.....he said all this stemmed from around 50,000 years ago....

be that as it may, I will use your data instead of mine, since it gives me an extra 150k years for the Chinese to forget their "jewish" heritage.....gosh that makes me chuckle.....you really thought Noah was "Jewish" didn't you......

1. If Noah wasn't Jewish, what was he?

2. If you go with my data, you're left with the unexplainable single FEMALE ancestor.

3. The Neolithic Era, which saw the advent of agriculture, started some 7000 years ago. Cain is clearly described as working the soil and he preceded Noah, so there is NO WAY Noah lived 50,000 much less 200,000 years ago.

[PostmodernProphet]

1. If Noah wasn't Jewish, what was he?

dude.....God went to Abraham and told him he would make a great nation out of his descendants.....he told Moses what he had to do to be "jewish".......Noah was "pre"-Jew.....lol......



2. If you go with my data, you're left with the unexplainable single FEMALE ancestor.


well I will give you this.....if all we have is a single, female ancestor, it IS unexplainable.....I always figured you needed a male in the mix somewhere......if everyone came from a single woman ancestor, wouldn't we also come from the guy who got it on with her?......look at it this way......wouldn't all of Noah's grandchildren share DNA from a single woman ancestor?......Noah's wife?......



3. The Neolithic Era, which saw the advent of agriculture, started some 7000 years ago. Cain is clearly described as working the soil and he preceded Noah, so there is NO WAY Noah lived 50,000 much less 200,000 years ago.

I take it then you are a "young agriculture" believer......

[Missileman]

well I will give you this.....if all we have is a single, female ancestor, it IS unexplainable.....I always figured you needed a male in the mix somewhere......if everyone came from a single woman ancestor, wouldn't we also come from the guy who got it on with her?......look at it this way......wouldn't all of Noah's grandchildren share DNA from a single woman ancestor?......Noah's wife?......

Only if Noah's Sons' wives were also Noah's daughters.




I take it then you are a "young agriculture" believer......

Please share your links to "old agriculture" theories and evidence.

[PostmodernProphet]

Only if Noah's Sons' wives were also Noah's daughters.


tell me how you figure Noah's grandchildren aren't descendants of Noah's wife......

[manu1959]

tell me how you figure Noah's grandchildren aren't descendants of Noah's wife......

were noah and his wife the only two humans that survived the great flood.......

[Missileman]

tell me how you figure Noah's grandchildren aren't descendants of Noah's wife......

It's called mitochondrial DNA. It's passed from females to their offspring. Noah's grandchildren would have the mitochondrial DNA of their mothers who got theirs from their mothers. Since Noah had sons, Noah's wife's mitochondrial DNA would not be present in any grandchildren.

[Psychoblues]

Uhhhhhhhh, I think you're eating them buggers, pimp.



Psych....your rambling foolishness is annoying, yet tolerable when you are engaged in the debate.....

throwing your shit into real discussions that are above your head are not tolerable......stay out of it or I will stop treating you like a the proverbial four year old picking his nose while watching his parents talk......

Carry on with your nonsense and stop telling me what I can and can't do. This ain't exactly the Army, is it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Chill Pill For the Nill Jill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

were noah and his wife the only two humans that survived the great flood.......

no, but everyone descended from everyone who survived would be descended from Noah and his wife.......


It's called mitochondrial DNA. It's passed from females to their offspring. Noah's grandchildren would have the mitochondrial DNA of their mothers who got theirs from their mothers. Since Noah had sons, Noah's wife's mitochondrial DNA would not be present in any grandchildren.

short and simple, Miss.....Noah had three sons....their DNA was shaped in part by their mother.....they were her descendants as well as the descendants of Noah....everybody who descended from any one of Noah's three sons would be the descendants of Mrs. Noah as well as Mr. Noah.....thus, everybody who came after would share DNA with Mrs. Noah.....this would not be true for her three daughters in law, since logically, only a third of everyone who came after would share DNA with any one of them.........got it now?......


Uhhhhhhhh, I think you're eating them buggers, pimp.




Carry on with your nonsense and stop telling me what I can and can't do. This ain't exactly the Army, is it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Chill Pill For the Nill Jill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

I'm not telling you what you can't do, Psych.....just telling you that if you keep doing what you've been doing I'm going to stop treating you like a tolerated mentally handicapped uncle and start treating you like an asshole......

[Missileman]

short and simple, Miss.....Noah had three sons....their DNA was shaped in part by their mother.....they were her descendants as well as the descendants of Noah....everybody who descended from any one of Noah's three sons would be the descendants of Mrs. Noah as well as Mr. Noah.....thus, everybody who came after would share DNA with Mrs. Noah.....this would not be true for her three daughters in law, since logically, only a third of everyone who came after would share DNA with any one of them.........got it now?......

Sons don't pass on mitochondrial DNA...do YOU get it now? Since Mrs. Noah only had sons, her mitochondrial DNA ended with her.

[PostmodernProphet]

Sons don't pass on mitochondrial DNA...do YOU get it now? Since Mrs. Noah only had sons, her mitochondrial DNA ended with her.

/hates to beat Missileman over the head with his own ignorance, but.....Miss?.....the issue isn't whether the sons passed on her mitochondrial DNA.....the issue is whether everyone who came after, descended from her....besides obviously some evidence of her remains in their DNA, otherwise you could never say that everyone descended from a woman who lived "x" number of years ago, whether it be 50 or 150 or 250 thousand years ago......

[Missileman]

/hates to beat Missileman over the head with his own ignorance, but.....Miss?.....the issue isn't whether the sons passed on her mitochondrial DNA.....the issue is whether everyone who came after, descended from her....and obviously some evidence of her remains, otherwise you could never say that everyone descended from a woman who lived "x" number of years ago, whether it be 50 or 150 or 250 thousand years ago......

No...they traced the mitochondrial DNA back to a single female. That female COULD NOT have been Mrs. Noah because she only had sons. Mrs. Noah's mitochondrial DNA was present in her sons, but it went NO FURTHER. EVERY GRANDCHILD of Noah's would have had the mitochondrial DNA of their respective mother who got it from their mothers, NOT from Mrs. Noah.

None of Mrs. Noah's grandchildren, and therefore none of their children, grandchildren, ad infinitum, had Mrs. Noah's mitochondrial DNA because it is only passed through females.

[Abbey Marie]

Apropos for the thread:

Working Replica of Noah's Ark Opened In SCHAGEN, Netherlands.

The massive central door in the side of Noah's Ark was opened for the first crowd of curious townsfolk to behold the wonder. Of course, it's only a replica of the biblical Ark , built by Dutch Creationist Johan Huibers as a testament to his faith in the literal truth of the Bible. The ark is 150 cubits long, 30 cubits high and 20 cubits wide. That's two-thirds the length of a football field and as high as a three-story house. Life-size models of giraffes, elephants, lions, crocodiles, zebras, bison and other animals greet visitors as they arrive in the main hold. A contractor by trade, Huibers built the ark of cedar and pine. Biblical scholars debate exactly what the wood used by Noah would have been. Huibers did the work mostly with his own hands, using modern tools and with occasional help from his son Roy. Construction began in May 2005. On the uncovered top deck - not quite ready in time for the opening - will come a petting zoo, with baby lambs and chickens, and goats, and one camel. Visitors on the first day were stunned. 'It's past comprehension', said Mary Louise Starosciak, who happened to be bicycling by with her husband while on vacation when they saw the ark looming over the local landscape. 'I know the story of Noah, but I had no idea the boat would have been so big.' There is enough space near the keel for a 50-seat film theater where kids can watch a video that tells the story of Noah and his ark. Huibers, a Christian man, said he hopes the project will renew interest in Christianity in the Netherlands, where church going has fallen dramatically in the past 50 years.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_048x1QHKkGw/SOBicSIRo6I/AAAAAAAAAOA/tPknybM92oY/s400/Noah%27s+Ark.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_048x1QHKkGw/SOBicVX_imI/AAAAAAAAAOI/zZoTusdvqUI/s400/Noah%27s+Ark2.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_048x1QHKkGw/SOBg348EF-I/AAAAAAAAANw/j0d05JXRl-Y/s400/Noah%27s+Ark7.jpg

More pics of building it, etc.:
http://litl-luther.blogspot.com/2008/09/man-builds-noahs-ark-to-exact-scale.html

[PostmodernProphet]

None of Mrs. Noah's grandchildren, and therefore none of their children, grandchildren, ad infinitum, had Mrs. Noah's mitochondrial DNA because it is only passed through females.

again....irrelevant....ALL of Mrs. Noah's grandchildren and their grandchildren, ad infinitum were her descendants......which is what I stated.......

[Yurt]

interesting link/pics abbey. do you know of any other boat to have those dimensions before the modern freighter? the boat looks like a modern day freighter, i would think the design was ahead of its time.

[Abbey Marie]

interesting link/pics abbey. do you know of any other boat to have those dimensions before the modern freighter? the boat looks like a modern day freighter, i would think the design was ahead of its time.

Interesting question, but I am not knowledgable about boats. Except for some Catamaran sailing, and motor boats big enough for water skiing and some Jersey Shore crabbing. :)

[Missileman]

again....irrelevant....ALL of Mrs. Noah's grandchildren and their grandchildren, ad infinitum were her descendants......which is what I stated.......

Damned you're thick-headed! None of the descendents of Noah, with the exception of his 3 sons, would have Noah's wife's mitochondrial DNA. Since they have traced the world's mitochondrial DNA back to a single female, the story of Noah can't be accurate. If the biblical account were true, then the mitochondrial DNA would lead back to 3 females...Noah's 3 daughters-in-law.

[Yurt]

Damned you're thick-headed! None of the descendents of Noah, with the exception of his 3 sons, would have Noah's wife's mitochondrial DNA. Since they have traced the world's mitochondrial DNA back to a single female, the story of Noah can't be accurate. If the biblical account were true, then the mitochondrial DNA would lead back to 3 females...Noah's 3 daughters-in-law.

and it is proven beyond any doubt...couldn't be wrong, not at all

'Mitochondrial Eve' is most recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to our matrilineal descent. Note that this does not necessarily mean that she was the only woman alive at that time. Presumably there were other females alive at that time, but her lineage is the only female lineage to have survived through to the modern day. Since then, as people have migrated across and out of Africa (see Ancient Migrations), their mtDNA has changed slightly owing to very occasional mutations in the genetic structure, offering us the wealth of different mtDNA types now.

http://www.cambridgedna.com/genealogy-dna-genetic-genealogy.php

[Missileman]

'Mitochondrial Eve' is most recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to our matrilineal descent. Note that this does not necessarily mean that she was the only woman alive at that time. Presumably there were other females alive at that time, but her lineage is the only female lineage to have survived through to the modern day. Since then, as people have migrated across and out of Africa (see Ancient Migrations), their mtDNA has changed slightly owing to very occasional mutations in the genetic structure, offering us the wealth of different mtDNA types now.

http://www.cambridgedna.com/genealogy-dna-genetic-genealogy.php

Wow Yurt...thanks for throwing in the answer to your own question.

There doesn't appear to be ANY doubt in the article you linked.

[PostmodernProphet]

Damned you're thick-headed! None of the descendents of Noah, with the exception of his 3 sons, would have Noah's wife's mitochondrial DNA. Since they have traced the world's mitochondrial DNA back to a single female, the story of Noah can't be accurate. If the biblical account were true, then the mitochondrial DNA would lead back to 3 females...Noah's 3 daughters-in-law.

leaving aside for the moment that you cannot deny all of the survivor's of the Ark would have to be the descendants of Mrs. Noah, what do you think the probabilities might be that all of her daughter's in law might share a common female ancestor some number of generations previous......I assume, for example, that all of them were born within say a hundred miles of each other?.......

for all we know, the entire population of the earth at that point might have been under a thousand.....

[Yurt]

Wow Yurt...thanks for throwing in the answer to your own question.

There doesn't appear to be ANY doubt in the article you linked.

you said it would lead back to three females, according to the gene theory that is not true, there were presumbly other females, only the alleged eve's gene's made it down the line.

i don't care if the article expressed doubt, i posted the article to show you that the story of noah could be true "even" using your dna theory.

[Missileman]

you said it would lead back to three females, according to the gene theory that is not true, there were presumbly other females, only the alleged eve's gene's made it down the line.

i don't care if the article expressed doubt, i posted the article to show you that the story of noah could be true "even" using your dna theory.

Noah had 3 sons...Shem, Ham, and Jaseph. If the mitochondrial DNA leads back to JUST ONE FEMALE, then 2 of the 3 son's lines are extinct. Unless that is you can explain how everyone on the planet is descended from just one of Noah's daughters-in-law.

[5stringJeff]

Noah had 3 sons...Shem, Ham, and Jaseph. If the mitochondrial DNA leads back to JUST ONE FEMALE, then 2 of the 3 son's lines are extinct. Unless that is you can explain how everyone on the planet is descended from just one of Noah's daughters-in-law.

Or, the three wives were three sisters, descended from one mother. Or, they were three cousins from the same grandmother. The Bible is silent on the subject, but that wouldn't be unheard of.

[Yurt]

Noah had 3 sons...Shem, Ham, and Jaseph. If the mitochondrial DNA leads back to JUST ONE FEMALE, then 2 of the 3 son's lines are extinct. Unless that is you can explain how everyone on the planet is descended from just one of Noah's daughters-in-law.

i was merely pointing out that the theory states that others were presumbly alive. what makes you think that any of noah's kids or his wife are this eve? maybe you mentioned it earlier, but i don't see why the eve dna theory must necessarily begin after the flood. maybe the eve dna theory is actually talking about the real eve, not about the survivors of the flood.

[Missileman]

leaving aside for the moment that you cannot deny all of the survivor's of the Ark would have to be the descendants of Mrs. Noah, what do you think the probabilities might be that all of her daughter's in law might share a common female ancestor some number of generations previous......I assume, for example, that all of them were born within say a hundred miles of each other?.......

for all we know, the entire population of the earth at that point might have been under a thousand.....

For all we know, it was a billion...enough anyways, that according to the story, the whole planet needed to be inundated.

Are you closely related to everyone within a hundred miles?


Or, the three wives were three sisters, descended from one mother. Or, they were three cousins from the same grandmother. The Bible is silent on the subject, but that wouldn't be unheard of.

3 brothers marrying 3 sisters and all their kids inter-marrying...I hear a banjo and guitar warming up.

[PostmodernProphet]

For all we know, it was a billion...enough anyways, that according to the story, the whole planet needed to be inundated.

Are you closely related to everyone within a hundred miles?

again, thinking every square inch of the earth needed to be inundated is an absurdity.....if everyone who was ever alive lived within a hundred miles, the whole known world could be inundated quite easily......

[5stringJeff]

3 brothers marrying 3 sisters and all their kids inter-marrying...I hear a banjo and guitar warming up.

No jokes about 5-stringed instruments, please. :)

[Missileman]

i was merely pointing out that the theory states that others were presumbly alive. what makes you think that any of noah's kids or his wife are this eve? maybe you mentioned it earlier, but i don't see why the eve dna theory must necessarily begin after the flood. maybe the eve dna theory is actually talking about the real eve, not about the survivors of the flood.

Except for the fact that there's no way that a 200,000 year-old Eve would have a son who was a farmer.


again, thinking every square inch of the earth needed to be inundated is an absurdity.....if everyone who was ever alive lived within a hundred miles, the whole known world could be inundated quite easily......

195,000 years and only enough people to cover a hundred miles? Now that's absurd!

[Yurt]

Except for the fact that there's no way that a 200,000 year-old Eve would have a son who was a farmer.



195,000 years and only enough people to cover a hundred miles? Now that's absurd!

your eve dna theory says that eve lived approx. 150,000 thousand years ago

[manu1959]

your eve dna theory says that eve lived approx. 150,000 thousand years ago

when did eve live.......and just to completely derail this......do you believe adam and eve were real or simply a parable for the moment "man" became enlightened.....

[Yurt]

when did eve live.......and just to completely derail this......do you believe adam and eve were real or simply a parable for the moment "man" became enlightened.....

when? which eve, dna eve or bible eve?

both adam and eve are real. if they are not real, then there is no real sin.

[manu1959]

when? which eve, dna eve or bible eve?

both adam and eve are real. if they are not real, then there is no real sin.

not being flip just don't know.....what year did adam and eve live.....

and then i assume all their relatives died out in the great flood and we are all desendants of noah and his wife ..... or did other people survive the flood....

[Yurt]

not being flip just don't know.....what year did adam and eve live.....

and then i assume all their relatives died out in the great flood and we are all desendants of noah and his wife ..... or did other people survive the flood....

no worries, didn't think you were being flip

my understanding is that adam and eve are thought to have lived approx 6000 or so years ago. this is based on biblical geneology lists.

noah, wife, 3 sons, daughters in law survived the flood

In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

[manu1959]

no worries, didn't think you were being flip

my understanding is that adam and eve are thought to have lived approx 6000 or so years ago. this is based on biblical geneology lists.

noah, wife, 3 sons, daughters in law survived the flood

In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

so 4000 bc......where was the garden of eden......

so were noah and his gang the only survivors of the flood?......when was the flood thought to have happened....

[Yurt]

another interesting tidbit, is that the ark is actually capable of surving the flood. i would wager that the design was way, way ahead of its time, it looks like a modern day oil tanker

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/arkAP_468x300.jpg




http://www.japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2719.chinahand.iran.asia/China-built%20oil%20tanker%20for%20Iran.jpg

[manu1959]

another interesting tidbit, is that the ark is actually capable of surving the flood. i would wager that the design was way, way ahead of its time, it looks like a modern day oil tanker

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/arkAP_468x300.jpg

http://www.japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2719.chinahand.iran.asia/China-built%20oil%20tanker%20for%20Iran.jpg

the ark had no power?

[Yurt]

so 4000 bc......where was the garden of eden......

so were noah and his gang the only survivors of the flood?......when was the flood thought to have happened....

the bible mentions rivers in the garden of eden and those rivers are:

interpretations of the seven days of Genesis. Before tackling this question let's review what is written in Genesis about the four rivers:

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
(Genesis 2:10-14 KJV)

however, i don't believe it is possible to find the exact location, especially given the flood. this site is fairly good for an explanation:

http://www.kjvbible.org/rivers_of_the_garden_of_eden.html

yes, noah and his family are the only human survivors. according to the same people who place adam and eve 4000ish bc, say the flood is probably around 2000-2500 bc. i believe, it has been years since i studied it.

[Yurt]

the ark had no power?

what for? the waters came, filled up the earth and the main purpose of the boat was to float. where would it need to power to? the entire earth had changed in the flood and i believe God guided the boat where he wanted. noah would have had no familiar landmarks, maybe the stars, but the land was forever altered.

[manu1959]

what for? the waters came, filled up the earth and the main purpose of the boat was to float. where would it need to power to? the entire earth had changed in the flood and i believe God guided the boat where he wanted. noah would have had no familiar landmarks, maybe the stars, but the land was forever altered.

to stay pointed into the wind so it wouldn't end up sideways in a trough...it was a pretty big storm ....no?

[manu1959]

the bible mentions rivers in the garden of eden and those rivers are:

interpretations of the seven days of Genesis. Before tackling this question let's review what is written in Genesis about the four rivers:

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
(Genesis 2:10-14 KJV)

however, i don't believe it is possible to find the exact location, especially given the flood. this site is fairly good for an explanation:

http://www.kjvbible.org/rivers_of_the_garden_of_eden.html

yes, noah and his family are the only human survivors. according to the same people who place adam and eve 4000ish bc, say the flood is probably around 2000-2500 bc. i believe, it has been years since i studied it.

thanks dude....my daughter is grilling me......she came home from sunday school with a hundred questions......

[Yurt]

to stay pointed into the wind so it wouldn't end up sideways in a trough...it was a pretty big storm ....no?

the boat looks pretty sea worthy to me. plus, i have no doubt if God can make a world wife flood he can guide one boat. :cool:

[manu1959]

the boat looks pretty sea worthy to me. plus, i have no doubt if God can make a world wife flood he can guide one boat. :cool:

why bother with a flood....

[Missileman]

the bible mentions rivers in the garden of eden and those rivers are:

interpretations of the seven days of Genesis. Before tackling this question let's review what is written in Genesis about the four rivers:

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
(Genesis 2:10-14 KJV)

however, i don't believe it is possible to find the exact location, especially given the flood. this site is fairly good for an explanation:

http://www.kjvbible.org/rivers_of_the_garden_of_eden.html

yes, noah and his family are the only human survivors. according to the same people who place adam and eve 4000ish bc, say the flood is probably around 2000-2500 bc. i believe, it has been years since i studied it.

So where are the ancient Chinese references to Noah, the Ark, and the God of the Jews? If Adam and Eve were on Earth 6000 years ago and they were the first humans, how have they identified a 200,000 year-old "mitochondrial Eve"?

[Yurt]

thanks dude....my daughter is grilling me......she came home from sunday school with a hundred questions......

anytime, i used to study this quite a lot, and still enjoy it.

if you ever get the chance, a very interesting read:

Creation; accident or design

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-accident-design-Harold-Coffin/dp/B0006BUXP0/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233026355&sr=1-6

i used this book to counter an evolutionist biology prof in college. she gave me straight A's on each report, though she didn't believe the book, the evidence presented wasn't a "joke".


i think this is a new book on the same subject:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RB6HXSXSL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

[Yurt]

why bother with a flood....

why bother with a tree?

[Yurt]

So where are the ancient Chinese references to Noah, the Ark, and the God of the Jews? If Adam and Eve were on Earth 6000 years ago and they were the first humans, how have they identified a 200,000 year-old "mitochondrial Eve"?

ask the chinese.

i am not positive on the 6000 years, it might be 7-10000.

why stop at 200,000 years, hell, let's make "eve" 65 million years old like the dinosaurs...

assuming there was a world wide flood, and the fountains of the deep were opened and the windows of heaven were opened (thin water layer between atmosphere theory)....i would argue that any dating of items preflood are going to not be the same. we have no idea what the atmosphere, carbon etc... was like.

[Missileman]

ask the chinese.

i am not positive on the 6000 years, it might be 7-10000.

why stop at 200,000 years, hell, let's make "eve" 65 million years old like the dinosaurs...

assuming there was a world wide flood, and the fountains of the deep were opened and the windows of heaven were opened (thin water layer between atmosphere theory)....i would argue that any dating of items preflood are going to not be the same. we have no idea what the atmosphere, carbon etc... was like.

Typical response. If evidence makes the story implausible, change the story. I particularly like the bolded BS. Isotopic dating is accepted as accurate by all but nutjob creationists. And there's not a single shred of evidence that the world was any different thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years ago.

[PostmodernProphet]

my understanding is that adam and eve are thought to have lived approx 6000 or so years ago. this is based on biblical geneology lists.

sorry, nothing biblical about it.....it's based on some mathematical calculations of a guy named Usher in the 1800s......don't you think it odd that the Jews don't interpret the OT the same way?......I would expect they would be better at understanding it than some 19th Century American......

[Yurt]

Typical response. If evidence makes the story implausible, change the story. I particularly like the bolded BS. Isotopic dating is accepted as accurate by all but nutjob creationists. And there's not a single shred of evidence that the world was any different thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years ago.

lighten up dude...i didn't change the story, dating was talked about earlier in the thread. where is your proof that it was exactly the same? if the earth was covered with water for nearly a year, are you saying that wouldn't change a thing? you have no idea that everything on the earth was the same before and after the flood, all you have is conjecture and theories.

and i never said i had evidence....i repeatedly have said "theory"...touched a nerve huh....

[PostmodernProphet]

ask the chinese.

i am not positive on the 6000 years, it might be 7-10000.

why stop at 200,000 years, hell, let's make "eve" 65 million years old like the dinosaurs...

assuming there was a world wide flood, and the fountains of the deep were opened and the windows of heaven were opened (thin water layer between atmosphere theory)....i would argue that any dating of items preflood are going to not be the same. we have no idea what the atmosphere, carbon etc... was like.

do me a favor Yurt....reread the first three chapters of Genesis.....now, tell me how much time passed between the first verse of Genesis 1 and the last verse of Genesis 3, using ONLY scripture......there is no reason at all to assume that 200,000 years didn't pass right there......or do you assume it only took them a week to screw up......

[Yurt]

do me a favor Yurt....reread the first three chapters of Genesis.....now, tell me how much time passed between the first verse of Genesis 1 and the last verse of Genesis 3, using ONLY scripture......there is no reason at all to assume that 200,000 years didn't pass right there......or do you assume it only took them a week to screw up......

what about the genealogy lists in teh bible?

http://www.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/bible_chronology.html

[PostmodernProphet]

what about the genealogy lists in teh bible?

http://www.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/bible_chronology.html

the Jews don't treat them as chronological time tables......why do we?.....and don't tell me the Jews don't treat the OT as the word of God, because they do......probably with more respect than most Christians do.....

even if you take them as such......when did Adam begin counting his age?......at "birth"?.......oops!......at his creation?.......at his fall?.......who knows.......

[PostmodernProphet]

what about the genealogy lists in teh bible?

http://www.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/bible_chronology.html

incidentally, Boyd is way off track in discounting the Genesis account as being narrative instead of poetry......the very first word of Genesis 1:2 identifies the second account of creation as Hebrew poetry....when you see a passages that begins with the word "Now", it is the translation of a Hebrew word that traditionally began the telling of an event around the campfire......Genesis 1:1 is the narrative statement of creation.....1:2 begins the record of what would have been repeated at tribal gatherings......Genesis 2:4 begins a narrative accounting....thus, there are three distinct statements of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis......a declaration, a poem, and a narrative.....

[Yurt]

the Jews don't treat them as chronological time tables......why do we?.....and don't tell me the Jews don't treat the OT as the word of God, because they do......probably with more respect than most Christians do.....

even if you take them as such......when did Adam begin counting his age?......at "birth"?.......oops!......at his creation?.......at his fall?.......who knows.......

i did not know that the jews do not treat them as chronological. still, it seems that with ages given a rough estimation is possible.

i do not believe what most christians see as the OT is the same as the hebrew scriptures/bible...


incidentally, Boyd is way off track in discounting the Genesis account as being narrative instead of poetry......the very first word of Genesis 1:2 identifies the second account of creation as Hebrew poetry....when you see a passages that begins with the word "Now", it is the translation of a Hebrew word that traditionally began the telling of an event around the campfire......Genesis 1:1 is the narrative statement of creation.....1:2 begins the record of what would have been repeated at tribal gatherings......Genesis 2:4 begins a narrative accounting....thus, there are three distinct statements of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis......a declaration, a poem, and a narrative.....

i thought of something else after rereading genesis...the genealogy lists do not start until after the fall. so i do not know how much time adam and eve were in the garden, nor do i know if they produced offspring...so yes, as you asked earlier, it is possible that 200,000 years passed.

[PostmodernProphet]

i do not believe what most christians see as the OT is the same as the hebrew scriptures/bible...


but it is.....



nor do i know if they produced offspring..

well, the Bible says that in punishment for sin Eve would experience pain in childbirth.....to me that implies that she was already familiar with childbirth and that it wasn't painful.........

[Yurt]

but it is.....


link...


well, the Bible says that in punishment for sin Eve would experience pain in childbirth.....to me that implies that she was already familiar with childbirth and that it wasn't painful.........

i know it "implies" it, i said i do not know for a fact

[Yurt]

What is the difference between the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament?
Both the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament of the Christian Bible contain the same twenty-four parts, called books; yet the Christian Bible arranges and divides the books differently, resulting in more books than in the Hebrew Bible. Among Christians, the Old Testament varies between Protestant and Catholic versions. The Protestant version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books, while the Catholic version contains forty-six. The seven additional books known as the Apocrypha (pronounced e-PAH-creh-fuh), included in the Catholic version, were written later than those of most of the Old Testament (c. 300 B.C.–A.D. 70).

[PostmodernProphet]

here is an online source for the Hebrew scripture, including the Torah and the other texts they recognize.....beyond that is the Talmud which is an historical collection of rabbaitical writings relating to what is and what is not permitted under the law......

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/tan/index.htm

[Missileman]

do me a favor Yurt....reread the first three chapters of Genesis.....now, tell me how much time passed between the first verse of Genesis 1 and the last verse of Genesis 3, using ONLY scripture......there is no reason at all to assume that 200,000 years didn't pass right there......or do you assume it only took them a week to screw up......


1 Adam [a] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth [c] a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
[B]Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.

Ahh, but there is. Agriculture is at most roughly 10,000 years old.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ahh, but there is. Agriculture is at most roughly 10,000 years old.

/shrugs....except for the agriculture that Cain and Abel did......there weren't many folks around yet, so there weren't many archeological remains left behind.......

[Yurt]

Ahh, but there is. Agriculture is at most roughly 10,000 years old.

cain and abel were born after the fall...before the fall adam and eve were in the garden of eden and were expelled after the fall, so the 10,000 years for ag actually fits creation theories.

[Missileman]

/shrugs....except for the agriculture that Cain and Abel did......there weren't many folks around yet, so there weren't many archeological remains left behind.......

So there were farmers 200,000 years ago, then none in between then and 10,000 years ago?

[Yurt]

So there were farmers 200,000 years ago, then none in between then and 10,000 years ago?

accordign to the bible, the garden of eden became off limits for man...eve, however, left the garden

[Missileman]

accordign to the bible, the garden of eden became off limits for man...eve, however, left the garden

So? How does that explain a 190,000 year gap in agriculture?

[Yurt]

So? How does that explain a 190,000 year gap in agriculture?

the garden of eden is off limits, so we can't tell what exactly went on there, for all i know, their agriculture was different, god just told them to tend the garden.

if you find the garden of eden, let me know

[PostmodernProphet]

So there were farmers 200,000 years ago, then none in between then and 10,000 years ago?

no, I figure there were farmers for a lot longer than archeological evidence accounts for......how much evidence do you expect to show up for herding goats?......

[Missileman]

no, I figure there were farmers for a lot longer than archeological evidence accounts for......how much evidence do you expect to show up for herding goats?......

I figure you're willing to make up any shit you have to to forward your lame ass argument. Particularly amusing is your acceptance of science's ability to trace humankind back to a 200,000 year-old female but doubt its ability to date pottery and farm implements and ancient human villages and remains to place a timing of the advent of agriculture at 10,000 years ago.

[Missileman]

the garden of eden is off limits, so we can't tell what exactly went on there, for all i know, their agriculture was different, god just told them to tend the garden.

if you find the garden of eden, let me know

Couple posts ago you said Cain and Abel were after the fall, so the garden of eden would have nothing to do with their agriculture, right?

[PostmodernProphet]

I figure you're willing to make up any shit you have to to forward your lame ass argument. Particularly amusing is your acceptance of science's ability to trace humankind back to a 200,000 year-old female but doubt its ability to date pottery and farm implements and ancient human villages and remains to place a timing of the advent of agriculture at 10,000 years ago.

you don't need pottery to herd goats......why should I accept your demand that there was no agriculture prior to 10k years ago?.......

[Yurt]

Couple posts ago you said Cain and Abel were after the fall, so the garden of eden would have nothing to do with their agriculture, right?

i don't think i mentioned cain and abel doing agriculture in the garden...

[Missileman]

i don't think i mentioned cain and abel doing agriculture in the garden...

no, you said this:
the garden of eden is off limits, so we can't tell what exactly went on there, for all i know, their agriculture was different, god just told them to tend the garden.

PmP is arguing that Cain and Abel could have lived and worked 200,000 years ago when the evidence shows that agriculture by humans didn't start until around 10,000 years ago.

You doubt the dating and PmP doubts the archaeology. Both of you want to cherry pick which scientific evidence you're willing to embrace based on whether it fits your version of the myth.

[PostmodernProphet]

You doubt the dating and PmP doubts the archaeology. Both of you want to cherry pick which scientific evidence you're willing to embrace based on whether it fits your version of the myth.

are you taking the position that unless there is archeological evidence for something it didn't happen?.....rather tenuous position for someone who believes in human evolution isn't it?.......I will repeat the question I asked earlier.....what type of archeological evidence would you expect of goat herding.......a lute and a crooked staff?.......

[Yurt]

no, you said this:

PmP is arguing that Cain and Abel could have lived and worked 200,000 years ago when the evidence shows that agriculture by humans didn't start until around 10,000 years ago.

You doubt the dating and PmP doubts the archaeology. Both of you want to cherry pick which scientific evidence you're willing to embrace based on whether it fits your version of the myth.

i never, ever said cain and abel were in the garden...

i really don't care for much of scientific theory, i don't have to accept any of it, and if i choose to accept some of the theory, that is my right. you want to call it cherry picking fine, go for it. but all you have is theory, all i have is theory. get off your high horse as if you are right without a doubt.

you seem real bothered by anyone disagreeing with your science. seems a little insecure to me.

[Missileman]

are you taking the position that unless there is archeological evidence for something it didn't happen?.....rather tenuous position for someone who believes in human evolution isn't it?.......I will repeat the question I asked earlier.....what type of archeological evidence would you expect of goat herding.......a lute and a crooked staff?.......

The Bible says Cain was a farmer, not a goat herder. And there is a mountain of archeological evidence that prior to 10,000 years ago, man was a hunter gatherer.

[Missileman]

i never, ever said cain and abel were in the garden...

i really don't care for much of scientific theory, i don't have to accept any of it, and if i choose to accept some of the theory, that is my right. you want to call it cherry picking fine, go for it. but all you have is theory, all i have is theory. get off your high horse as if you are right without a doubt.

you seem real bothered by anyone disagreeing with your science. seems a little insecure to me.

You were the one who brought "garden of eden" agriculture into an argument about whether Cain was a farmer 200,000 years ago...I'm still not sure why.

Isotopic dating isn't "theory". Archeological evidence isn't "theory" The existence of a 5,000 year-old Chinese civilization isn't "theory".

I'm sure I appear to be on a high horse from your seat on the jackass!

[Yurt]

You were the one who brought "garden of eden" agriculture into an argument about whether Cain was a farmer 200,000 years ago...I'm still not sure why.

Isotopic dating isn't "theory". Archeological evidence isn't "theory" The existence of a 5,000 year-old Chinese civilization isn't "theory".

I'm sure I appear to be on a high horse from your seat on the jackass!

you mean that pony on stilts

[DannyR]

no, its a number that unbelievers like to bandy about when they want to mock people who believe......it has no relationship to any teaching of Christianity, or any scriptural doctrine....it's just something atheists like to chuckle about.

I'm at a loss as how you can claim this.

The 6000 year date is bandied about not just by atheists mocking Chrstian's, but by the most fervent Christians themselves who take the bible absolutely literally. Likewise the Hebrew calendar is based on similar methodology. The method of its derivation is rather easy to understand and is pretty much entirely scriptural, not just a number pulled out of the air.

A review of the Ussher chronology might help in explaining where the number comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

The biblical chronologies compiled by Ussher and other biblical scholars used the same methodology to calculate key events recorded in the Bible. However, because the Bible was compiled from different sources over several centuries with differing versions and lengthy chronological gaps, the compilation invloved more than a simple totaling of Biblical ages and dates. In his article on Ussher's calendar, James Barr[3] identified three distinct periods that Ussher had to tackle:

* Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher relied on the Hebrew Bible as his primary source.

* Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings' reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.

* Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (in 2 Kings 25:27).

Using these methods, Ussher was able to establish an unadjusted Creation date of about 4000 BC. He moved it back to 4004 BC to take account of an error perpetrated by Dionysius Exiguus, the founder of the Anno Domini numbering system. Josephus indicated that the death of Herod the Great occurred in 4 BC; therefore, Jesus could not have been born after that date. Jesus was born some time between 37 BC (when Herod came to power) and 4 BC. In the event, Ussher calculated that Christ's birth year must have been 4 BC.

Now I'm no believer in a universal flood. I just don't see any evidence any such thing ever occurred. Yes, there are flood tales around the world, but thats because floods happen, and catastrophic ones on occasion. But as a scientist I've never seen the evidence of a global world wide flood. Nor in my opinion do the physics support such a possibility. We certainly do see evidence of pretty massive floods that would wipe out possible civilizations, but nothing world wide. But to the primitive man, the sight of waters covering land as far as the eye could see would easily seem like a world wide event and the story passed along as such.

But I do strongly believe that the Bible does hold the kernel of truth in many of its great stories, just as the myths of Troy and Oracle of Delphi have themselves been proven out.

For instance it is very interesting that there were several possible catastrophic floods, the likes we've never seen anywhere in modern times, back during early human habitation of the Middle East, both to the north and south.

The Black Sea deluge for instance possibly occurred between 5500 and 7500 years ago when the waters from the Mediterranean broke through the isthmus and vastly increased the size of the Black Sea, quickly flooding most of the previous coast line.

Similarly, its possible the straight of Hormuz once held back waters that came flooding in 12000 years ago greatly expanding the Persian gulf.

In both historic deluges, most human settlements at the time would be along the shores of the smaller bodies of water, and all would be totally destroyed in the aftermath as the waters pushed the shores hundreds of miles further inland.

I think it highly likely most of the flood myths of the Babylonian/Hebrew culture are probably tales from survivors of these ancient cataclysms.

For your amusement:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Deluge_(prehistoric)

[darin]

But as a scientist...



You're a scientist????????????


here's one scientist with whom you'd disagree, I suppose:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,486684,00.html

LYNCHBURG, Va. — It's one of the most familiar Bible stories.

Saddened by the wickedness of man, God directs the righteous Noah to build an ark for his family and two of each species of animal.

Together, they ride the ark through 40 days and 40 nights of torrential rains that God unleashes upon the Earth. And when the waters subside, Noah and the animals return to land.

"That seems almost like a fairy story," said archaeologist Randall Price, who is director of Liberty University's new Center for Judaic Studies. "But we believe it was an actual event."

This summer Price, 57, plans to continue on a journey to prove just that as he joins an expedition to Mount Ararat. His team believes that it is there, in Eastern Turkey, where Noah's Ark remains preserved underneath layers of rubble and ice.

"There's a whole trail of history pointing to it [Mt. Ararat]," Price said in a recent interview. "But in our age, people tend to think it is more of a story like Jack and the Bean Stalk.' Our aim is to show that the Bible is good history."

He pointed to Genesis 8:4, which states, "and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat," in The New International Version of the Bible.

[PostmodernProphet]

The 6000 year date is bandied about not just by atheists mocking Chrstian's, but by the most fervent Christians themselves who take the bible absolutely literally.

because you need more than simply a literal translation of scriptures to end up with a 6000 year date.....you need assumptions that are not supplied by scripture......

[DannyR]

You're a scientist?

I've got the educational loans to prove it. ;-) I'm not a geologist, but work in biomedical research, so I've got more than a bit of passing familiarity when the topic of DNA and the like comes up. All I'm saying is that I've yet to see any overriding proof of a global flood that satisfies the numerous observations saying otherwise.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

here's one scientist with whom you'd disagree, I suppose

Not certain I'd classify Price as a scientist since his degree is in religion. He is a Th.M. graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary in Old Testament and Semitic Languages and holds a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Texas at Austin.

But before you post tons more, I can do so myself if I wished, there are hundreds of scientists who believe in creationism and biblical flood. Not a majority, but enough to easily name them, so no need. I'm not here to argue that people's faith is wrong. I just don't see the proof of it myself.


because you need more than simply a literal translation of scriptures to end up with a 6000 year date.....you need assumptions that are not supplied by scripture.

I don't disagree. But saying the number is entirely unscriptural isn't exactly true either. Many events in the old testament, while not specifically dated, can be somewhat correlated to other sources.

And for the biblical literalists, the 7 days of creation usually means exactly that, 7 DAYS. *shrug*

[darin]

You might wanna learn to quote ;)

[DannyR]

You might wanna learn to quote

Sorry, got used to using italics at my old forum. This site have a faster way of quoting than spelling out quote in brackets, such as /q or the like?

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't disagree. But saying the number is entirely unscriptural isn't exactly true either.


sure it is.....simple mathematics......4000 + x does not equal 4000 where x is a completely unknown number.......

[PostmodernProphet]

And for the biblical literalists, the 7 days of creation usually means exactly that, 7 DAYS. *shrug*

/shrugs.....when Wordsworth wrote...

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

did he tell you a literal truth about daffodils in the wind that had nothing to do with ballet?..........

[Yurt]

You might wanna learn to quote

Sorry, got used to using italics at my old forum. This site have a faster way of quoting than spelling out quote in brackets, such as /q or the like?

click the quote button, it will blow your mind

[Missileman]

/shrugs.....when Wordsworth wrote...

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

did he tell you a literal truth about daffodils in the wind that had nothing to do with ballet?..........

Is this an admission that nothing in the Bible should be taken literally? First you want to argue that your god isn't capable of flooding the entire globe, when the Bible very clearly states he did and now you argue that he isn't capable of The Creation in 7 days, again when the Bible very clearly states he did.

As I'm pretty sure there must be some parts of the Bible you actually DO believe, can you explain the process you use to decide which?

[PostmodernProphet]

Is this an admission that nothing in the Bible should be taken literally? First you want to argue that your god isn't capable of flooding the entire globe, when the Bible very clearly states he did and now you argue that he isn't capable of The Creation in 7 days, again when the Bible very clearly states he did.

As I'm pretty sure there must be some parts of the Bible you actually DO believe, can you explain the process you use to decide which?

no....merely pointing out that I can understand scriptures "literally" and come to completely different understandings than someone else who understands it "literally".....when someone says he takes the scriptures 'literally', do you think when he reads the text that says "the cattle on a thousand hills sing the praises of the Lord" that he wonders why the cattle on hill number 1001 are unbelievers?........


now you argue that he isn't capable of The Creation in 7 days

where did you get that silly idea.....I believe in a God who is capable of creating in seven days or seven seconds or seven million years.....which he chose to do doesn't matter to me much.....I figure if it were really important he would have devoted more than two pages of the bible to explain it.....


As I'm pretty sure there must be some parts of the Bible you actually DO believe, can you explain the process you use to decide which?

I believe what the Bible communicates about God......not what atheists try to claim the Bible communicates about God in order to ridicule believers.....

I believe that God created everything, that humans screwed it up by sinning and that God fixed it again through his incarnation and sacrifice....

I DON'T believe it matters whether the entire planet was inundated by a flood or only that part of it where humans were.....I DON'T believe it matters whether the earth was created in six, twenty four hour days......I don't believe it matters whether there were 42,000 horses in Solomon's stable or 4,200.....

[Missileman]

I believe what the Bible communicates about God......not what atheists try to claim the Bible communicates about God in order to ridicule believers.....

I believe that God created everything, that humans screwed it up by sinning and that God fixed it again through his incarnation and sacrifice....

I DON'T believe it matters whether the entire planet was inundated by a flood or only that part of it where humans were.....I DON'T believe it matters whether the earth was created in six, twenty four hour days......I don't believe it matters whether there were 42,000 horses in Solomon's stable or 4,200.....

Why then should anything the Bible claims matter?

[PostmodernProphet]

Why then should anything the Bible claims matter?

what the Bible claims matters......but what you claim the Bible claims doesn't matter......

what do you think is important about the story of the Flood........1) how many cubic feet of gopher wood Noah had to cut?.......2) how many miles a dove can fly while carrying an olive branch?.....3) there is a deity with total control of creation.....

what is the author trying to communicate to you?.......seriously....it's the same question an English teacher would ask you about Wordsworth's poem......how complicated would it be?......

[Missileman]

what the Bible claims matters......but what you claim the Bible claims doesn't matter......

I'm not claiming the Bible claims anything other than what is written in it. YOU are the one making claims about meanings other than what is written.

[PostmodernProphet]

I was editing while you were posting....I think the edit answered your question.....

[Missileman]

what do you think is important about the story of the Flood........1) how many cubic feet of gopher wood Noah had to cut?.......2) how many miles a dove can fly while carrying an olive branch?.....3) there is a deity with total control of creation.....

what is the author trying to communicate to you?.......seriously....it's the same question an English teacher would ask you about Wordsworth's poem......how complicated would it be?......

The accuracy of the story of The Flood is what is important...not the accuracy of the minute details of the story, but the stroy as a whole. It's important, along with the overall accuracy of the other stories, because the Bible has been and continues to be offered as the word of a god. It has been and continues to be offered as justification for slavery, laws against mixed marriages, discrimination against homosexuals, etc.

It is entirely rational to expect a high level of accuracy for a book of such purported import.

[PostmodernProphet]

not the accuracy of the minute details of the story, but the stroy as a whole

and how do you define the difference....never mind....I know.....you define the difference as "whatever it takes to discredit it"........

[PostmodernProphet]

continues to be offered as justification for slavery

lol, no it doesn't......just how frickin stupid do you plan to get.....name me somebody who "continues to offer it to justify slavery"......


laws against mixed marriages

ditto, dude......

atheists continue to be idiots......

[Missileman]

lol, no it doesn't......just how frickin stupid do you plan to get.....name me somebody who "continues to offer it to justify slavery"......



ditto, dude......

atheists continue to be idiots......

Let me rephrase since you want to use my bad wording as an excuse to avoid the issue.

It has been used to justify slavery and laws against inter-racial marriage, and has been and continues to be used to discriminate against homosexuals.

Better?

[Missileman]

and how do you define the difference....never mind....I know.....you define the difference as "whatever it takes to discredit it"........

How about the most important detail...whether it actually happened.

[PostmodernProphet]

How about the most important detail...whether it actually happened.

lol, what a coincidence.....


Let me rephrase since you want to use my bad wording as an excuse to avoid the issue.

you don't like the way the bible is "worded" so you avoid the issue of the existence of God.......you can't discredit something, or completely ignore it, because you don't like the way you interpret the details.......

[PostmodernProphet]

It has been used to justify slavery and laws against inter-racial marriage, and has been and continues to be used to discriminate against homosexuals.

Better?

so let me get this straight.....a handful of slave owners grasping at straws promote the interpretations of ONE theologian and you think it's worth discussing a hundred years later?.........how about YOU tell me how the Bible "justifies" slavery......as I said....atheists are ignorant......you make arguments based on things you've never even read, let alone tried to interpret......you get your material from pasting out of discredited atheist rant sites......

[DannyR]

how about YOU tell me how the Bible "justifies" slavery.
This is as easy as pie:

The bible not only fails to ever condemn slavery, but old testament passages even give rules for the treatment of slaves and regulation of the practice.

Exodus 21, notes owners aren't punished for beating slaves since they are property, and regulates length of slavery term for ownership of jewish slaves.

Leviticus 25:44-46 notes that non-Jewish slaves can be made slaves for life and willed to children, same as any other property.

Probably most damning for Christians, is that Paul could easily have freed a slave and condemned the practice when writing to Philemon, but chose to remain silent on the issue, sending the slave back to his owner.

Likewise Jesus also was silent on the issue.

The only criticism of slavery is indirect, that of the golden rule. Simple fact is that like the tax issue discussed in a different threat, the Bible never condemns slavery. It fails to ever challenge it as evil. As such, slave holders were always well within their rights to assume that not only is the practice of slavery as valid as that of taxes, but arguments against it based on the Bible are wrong as well, since proof that slavery was acceptable is easily found.


as I said....atheists are ignorant......you make arguments based on things you've never even read, let alone tried to interpret......you get your material from pasting out of discredited atheist rant sites......

Wrong. This atheist has read the Bible back and forth many times. My background is of a "born again" southern conservative baptist who's gone to church all his life and attended numerous seminary classes. Not all of us just read the cliff note version of "how to be a Christian"

[PostmodernProphet]

Probably most damning for Christians, is that Paul could easily have freed a slave and condemned the practice when writing to Philemon, but chose to remain silent on the issue, sending the slave back to his owner.

"
a case in point...atheists are ignorant of scripture......Paul didn't "remain silent"....he told Philemon to treat this guy as a brother, not as a slave.....what do you think "not as a slave" means?......

and by the way, the slave in question was being held by a Greek, not a Jew....in Judaism, slaves served for a maximum of seven years in accordance with a contract for cash payment.....not the sort of thing that the Southerners were doing prior to the Civil War.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Not all of us just read the cliff note version of "how to be a Christian"

apparently, you would have benefited, if you had.....there were significant reasons that the folks who set up the underground railroad were Christians, who defied secular law regarding the ownership of humans and smuggled them to safety.......

[PostmodernProphet]

while you're at it, give a try at defending his second claim....that the Bible prohibits interracial marriage.....

[Yurt]

This is as easy as pie:

The bible not only fails to ever condemn slavery, but old testament passages even give rules for the treatment of slaves and regulation of the practice.

Exodus 21, notes owners aren't punished for beating slaves since they are property, and regulates length of slavery term for ownership of jewish slaves.

Leviticus 25:44-46 notes that non-Jewish slaves can be made slaves for life and willed to children, same as any other property.

Probably most damning for Christians, is that Paul could easily have freed a slave and condemned the practice when writing to Philemon, but chose to remain silent on the issue, sending the slave back to his owner.

Likewise Jesus also was silent on the issue.

The only criticism of slavery is indirect, that of the golden rule. Simple fact is that like the tax issue discussed in a different threat, the Bible never condemns slavery. It fails to ever challenge it as evil. As such, slave holders were always well within their rights to assume that not only is the practice of slavery as valid as that of taxes, but arguments against it based on the Bible are wrong as well, since proof that slavery was acceptable is easily found.



Wrong. This atheist has read the Bible back and forth many times. My background is of a "born again" southern conservative baptist who's gone to church all his life and attended numerous seminary classes. Not all of us just read the cliff note version of "how to be a Christian"

so the slave owners in america followed the OT rules regarding slavery?

[DannyR]

so the slave owners in america followed the OT rules regarding slavery?I don't know of many Jewish slaves in the south, which the OT required to be released after 6 years, so I guess so. Like most religious people, they probably picked and chose what verses were important to them and ignored those that weren't. Point of this discusion is that there are an abundance of verses allowing for slavery and setting rules for it, but none absolutely condemning it.

The slave owners certainly used the OT to support their position.

[Yurt]

I don't know of many Jewish slaves in the south, which the OT required to be released after 6 years, so I guess so.

The slave owners certainly used the OT to support their position.

just because they used the OT to support their position does not mean the bible advocates that kind of slavery.

are you talking what the bible condones or what people "say" the bible condones? surely you know the difference...

[eighballsidepocket]

dinosaurs and the like were probably on the ark too - but due to the climate change after the flood, the big reptiles died out shortly thereafter.

I'm a rare but growing breed of Christian, called, "Old Earth Christian".
http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtml
Dr. Hugh Ross: Founder of, "Reasons To Believe"
(Take A Look At His Credentials At The Website!)

Meaning: The earth truly is several billion years old, and the Genesis account authored by Moses does not definitively disagree.

The Hebrew translation of "day" can be both a 24 hour period or a "long epic" of time. There are many more words or synonyms or similar meaning words in the English language than Hebrew. The context of a passage in Hebrew of the bible must be accounted for when interpreting a verse/passage.

Anyway, I have absolutely no conflict with my biblical, Christian faith, and a 3-4 billion year old earth, that has gone through continental drift, many episodes of animal extinctions etc., before the advent of Man's creation by God Himself. :salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

Like most religious people, they probably picked and chose what verses were important to them and ignored those that weren't.

sort of like the way atheists pick verses and interpret them in a way that makes them easiest to condemn?........

[DannyR]

a case in point...atheists are ignorant of scripture......Paul didn't "remain silent"....he told Philemon to treat this guy as a brother, not as a slave.....what do you think "not as a slave" means?

He told him this because the slave in question was also a Christian. He fell short of telling him to free him.


and by the way, the slave in question was being held by a Greek, not a Jew....in Judaism, slaves served for a maximum of seven years in accordance with a contract for cash payment.....not the sort of thing that the Southerners were doing prior to the Civil War.....Reread your jewish law. Being freed on the 7th year only applied to Jewish slaves. Slaves who were not jewish could be owned for life. (I posted this above)


there were significant reasons that the folks who set up the underground railroad were Christians, who defied secular law regarding the ownership of humans and smuggled them to safetySignificant reasons, but not scriptural ones, other than treating our fellow humans as we would treat ourselves. Are you missing my point? Like paying taxes, ownership of another human being was not expressly prohibited by any verse in the Bible.



that the Bible prohibits interracial marriage

Also easy as pie, at least when it comes to Jews. Deut. 7:3-4 expressly forbids it. If this applies to non-jews is open for debate, although I doubt you'd find anyone today who thinks it is a commandment for modern Christians.

[DannyR]

just because they used the OT to support their position does not mean the bible advocates that kind of slavery.

are you talking what the bible condones or what people "say" the bible condones? surely you know the difference...You're starting to raise a strawman here. I don't think anyone said the Bible "advocated" slavery, anymore than your own argument that Jesus "advocated" paying taxes.

As you stated in the tax issue, what the Bible does do is pretty much recognize that it existed, and never expressly forbade it. That pretty much means its not a moral issue as far as the Bible goes, but a state one.



sort of like the way atheists pick verses and interpret them in a way that makes them easiest to condemn?what other verse could I have used? You say I forgot that Paul told him to treat him well. That is NOT however a commandment saying slavery is wrong. There are plenty of Bible verses saying treat your slaves well. If anything, this supports the idea that slavery is ok. Paul specifically did not free the slave, and that is the ultimate point of that section of scripture.

[Yurt]

You're starting to raise a strawman here. I don't think anyone said the Bible "advocated" slavery, anymore than your own argument that Jesus "advocated" paying taxes.

As you stated in the tax issue, what the Bible does do is pretty much recognize that it existed, and never expressly forbade it. That pretty much means its not a moral issue as far as the Bible goes, but a state one.

raising a strawman....i (asked) you if that is what you were claiming...


are you talking what the bible condones or what people "say" the bible condones?

last i checked, that is not even in the same universe as starting to raise a strawman....or do you believe that someone who asks someone else to clarify their stance is guilty of "starting" to raise a strawman....

oh noze, looky, i started to raise a strawman again :laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

Reread your jewish law. Being freed on the 7th year only applied to Jewish slaves. Slaves who were not jewish could be owned for life. (I posted this above)


and if we follow the analogy....wouldn't it apply to Greeks owning Greek slaves.....Romans owning Roman slaves....Christians owning Christian slaves..and as we move into the modern era....humans owning human slaves......as I said, you are ignoring the historical reality of what slavery was in the age.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Significant reasons, but not scriptural ones, other than treating our fellow humans as we would treat ourselves. Are you missing my point? Like paying taxes, ownership of another human being was not expressly prohibited by any verse in the Bible.


not missing it, rejecting it.....if you argue that it doesn't expressly "prohibit" it you have to admit it also doesn't expressly "justify" it, which chucks your argument out the window.....I will go farther and say that it does specifically speak against it when Paul tells Philemon NOT to treat him as a slave any longer....



Also easy as pie, at least when it comes to Jews. Deut. 7:3-4 expressly forbids it. If this applies to non-jews is open for debate, although I doubt you'd find anyone today who thinks it is a commandment for modern Christians.

???...dude.....they weren't people of differing races....they were people of differing religions.....why don't you try again but put some serious effort into it.....

[DannyR]

or do you believe that someone who asks someone else to clarify their stance is guilty of "starting" to raise a strawman.I didn't say you actually raised one. I just wanted to make certain you didn't do so. I never said the bible advocated slavery.
if you argue that it doesn't expressly "prohibit" it you have to admit it also doesn't expressly "justify" it, which chucks your argument out the window.My argument? See above. You just stated my argument. The Bible doesn't expressly prohibit slavery. You can say Paul's admonition to treat him as a brother speaks against slavery, but I'd have to disagree with that tact. Treating one's slaves well has always been a commandment. A chain however is still a chain, even if respect and love are also there.
and if we follow the analogy....wouldn't it apply to Greeks owning Greek slaves.....Romans owning Roman slaves....Christians owning Christian slaves..and as we move into the modern era....humans owning human slaves......as I said, you are ignoring the historical reality of what slavery was in the age.....Um, I think you are the one ignoring the historical reality here. That being that during biblical ages, slavery was perfectly acceptable. Ergo, slavery is not prohibited by it and there is lots of support to be found in its passages by those who would want slavery in modern times.
they weren't people of differing races....they were people of differing religionsOf course they were also of a different religion. Thus the primary basis for the law. Doesn't change the fact that many Jewish people consider themselves a race apart, and its certain that a number of non-jews think them so, so I'll stand pat with my answer. Still a clear prohibition against marriage there. Not nearly as strong an argument as the slavery one, but still, you can't deny that marrying something "other" was considered wrong. The Bible didn't say convert the Canaanites, and then its ok to marry them. It said pretty much to smite them all to death. (or do you want to argue the Bible never portrayed genocide as ok ever either?)

[DannyR]

I'm a rare but growing breed of Christian, called, "Old Earth Christian".
...
The Hebrew translation of "day" can be both a 24 hour period or a "long epic" of time. I wouldn't call that rare. Actually the majority of Christians I think hold this view. I used to hold that view myself at one point.

[PostmodernProphet]

I never said the bible advocated slavery
you said it "justified" it....in fact you said proving it was "easy as pie".....yet it appears now that the best you can do is say it doesn't "expressly prohibit" it.......not the same.....



Doesn't change the fact that many Jewish people consider themselves a race apart, and its certain that a number of non-jews think them so, so I'll stand pat with my answer. )

/shrugs....doesn't matter if you stand pat or not...still the wrong answer.....I take it then you can't prove the Bible prohibits multi-racial marriage either?......

[PostmodernProphet]

It said pretty much to smite them all to death.
actually, he only ordered them to smite the ones who engaged in human sacrifice.....

[DannyR]

you said it "justified" it....in fact you said proving it was "easy as pie".....yet it appears now that the best you can do is say it doesn't "expressly prohibit" it.......not the same.....Um, no. Justifying it still applies and I'm perfectly correct using that word. The Old Testament did provide laws relating to slaves and their treatment. That is a justification of the practice. It conformed to the laws of the day.


take it then you can't prove the Bible prohibits multi-racial marriage either?......I provided the primary verse used by those who would argue the Bible supports the practice as you asked. You argue it applies only to different religions, but those who use the verse state otherwise. *shrug* The interracial marriage thing was never my argument so I'll not pursue that line further. Take it up with whoever posed the original question.


actually, he only ordered them to smite the ones who engaged in human sacrifice.....
Ah, good to know the genocide was justified.

[Missileman]

so let me get this straight.....a handful of slave owners grasping at straws promote the interpretations of ONE theologian and you think it's worth discussing a hundred years later?.........how about YOU tell me how the Bible "justifies" slavery......as I said....atheists are ignorant......you make arguments based on things you've never even read, let alone tried to interpret......you get your material from pasting out of discredited atheist rant sites......

Has the Bible been used to justify slavery or not? Has the Bible and does the Bible continue to be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals, yes or no?

[Missileman]

lol, what a coincidence.....



you don't like the way the bible is "worded" so you avoid the issue of the existence of God.......you can't discredit something, or completely ignore it, because you don't like the way you interpret the details.......

It's really simple...if the details of what would have to happen if everyone on the planet except the 8 people on board the ark were wiped out don't jive with the historical record and don't pass any kind of common sense test the story can't be true.

I don't have a problem with the way the Bible is worded, you do. I'm willing to take it word for word, exactly as written and call it what it is...a myth. A myth no different than all of the other myths of those days.

[Yurt]

Has the Bible been used to justify slavery or not? Has the Bible and does the Bible continue to be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals, yes or no?

whether the bible has been used by someone to justify X, doesn't mean the bible justifies X

the bible "discriminates" against murderers too...let's throw it out, disriminating book...

if you read the bible it abhors the sin and the sinner can still obtain redemption and everlasting life

[Missileman]

whether the bible has been used by someone to justify X, doesn't mean the bible justifies X

Never said otherwise.


the bible "discriminates" against murderers too...let's throw it out, disriminating book...

If you're trying to make an argument that the Bible is the impetus for laws against murder and should therefore be used as justification for discrimination against homosexuals, try again...all you've made is a steaming pile of bullshit!

[Yurt]

Never said otherwise.



If you're trying to make an argument that the Bible is the impetus for laws against murder and should therefore be used as justification for discrimination against homosexuals, try again...all you've made is a steaming pile of bullshit!

i thought you did by asking whether people have used it to justify X...

no need to try anything again, what i said is true and you are free to believe otherwise

[PostmodernProphet]

Has the Bible been used to justify slavery or not? Has the Bible and does the Bible continue to be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals, yes or no?

no.....it is YOUR assessment that it is 'discrimination'.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Um, no. Justifying it still applies and I'm perfectly correct using that word. The Old Testament did provide laws relating to slaves and their treatment. That is a justification of the practice. It conformed to the laws of the day.

except that you have NOT shown that the scriptures "justified" slavery....at best, you have "implied" that it tolerated it.....




I provided the primary verse used by those who would argue the Bible supports the practice as you asked. You argue it applies only to different religions, but those who use the verse state otherwise. *shrug* The interracial marriage thing was never my argument so I'll not pursue that line further. Take it up with whoever posed the original question.


you provided nothing about race, you merely wasted our time.....


Ah, good to know the genocide was justified.

again, your assessment.....and unjustified.....

[PostmodernProphet]

It's really simple...if the details of what would have to happen if everyone on the planet except the 8 people on board the ark were wiped out don't jive with the historical record and don't pass any kind of common sense test the story can't be true.

I don't have a problem with the way the Bible is worded, you do. I'm willing to take it word for word, exactly as written and call it what it is...a myth. A myth no different than all of the other myths of those days.

wrong.....you have no idea whatsoever whether the historical record coincides with the drowning of all except eight people on board the ark.....it isn't my fault that you interpret scripture to imply that the Himalyas were swamped.....

[Missileman]

no.....it is YOUR assessment that it is 'discrimination'.......

What a chicken shit cop out!

[PostmodernProphet]

no cop out....just tired of liberals declaring victory in arguments because they think they control the definitions......where does scripture "discriminate" against homosexuals....is identifying an activity as improper a discrimination?......does the Ten Commandments discriminate against those who covet?......should those who commit idolatry be able to sue for unfair treatment?.....

[Yurt]

What a chicken shit cop out!

so the law of the US discriminates against those who steal cars, clothes, kill people, rape people?

[Missileman]

wrong.....you have no idea whatsoever whether the historical record coincides with the drowning of all except eight people on board the ark.....it isn't my fault that you interpret scripture to imply that the Himalyas were swamped.....

Bullshit! There's overwhelming evidence that the stories of the Bible (Adam and Eve forward) couldn't have taken place more than 10,000 years ago...stick your fingers in your ears and your head up your ass and holler LALALALA as loudly as you care, but the evidence is undeniable.

And it's not my interpretation of what the Bible says, it's what the Bible clearly states in plain language...you are the one engaging in interpretation.

[Missileman]

no cop out....just tired of liberals declaring victory in arguments because they think they control the definitions......where does scripture "discriminate" against homosexuals....is identifying an activity as improper a discrimination?......does the Ten Commandments discriminate against those who covet?......should those who commit idolatry be able to sue for unfair treatment?.....

Nice strawman!

Deny that the Bible has been used and continues to be used as justification to discriminate against homosexuals.

[Missileman]

so the law of the US discriminates against those who steal cars, clothes, kill people, rape people?

Another strawman.

[PostmodernProphet]

Bullshit! There's overwhelming evidence that the stories of the Bible (Adam and Eve forward) couldn't have taken place more than 10,000 years ago...

no....you claim it is proven by the LACK of evidence....the same thing you reject as "proof" of God.......your inconsistencies work against you.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Nice strawman!

Deny that the Bible has been used and continues to be used as justification to discriminate against homosexuals.

quote me a scripture verse that says it is wrong to BE a homosexual.....don't give me any more of this shit about "justifies" when it is so easily proven that the justification claim is unwarranted.....

{has anyone else noticed that "strawman" means "I don't want to answer the question"?}......

[Missileman]

no....you claim it is proven by the LACK of evidence....the same thing you reject as "proof" of God.......your inconsistencies work against you.....

There is evidence that prior to 10,000 years ago, man was a hunter/gatherer, not a farmer. Cain is described as working the soil, AKA farming. Couple that with "mitochondrial Eve" being traced back to 200,000 years ago and your story unravels.

There is also a lack of evidence that the 8 people on board the ark could have re-populated the earth, migrated to the 4-corners of the globe, developed new languages and new lore, morphed into the various races, all within a few generations and all suffering the identical selective amnesia where they remember a flood, but have no recollection of Noah or an ark.

[Missileman]

quote me a scripture verse that says it is wrong to BE a homosexual.....don't give me any more of this shit about "justifies" when it is so easily proven that the justification claim is unwarranted.....

{has anyone else noticed that "strawman" means "I don't want to answer the question"?}......

I didn't answer your question because you are asking about something that I haven't said, hence strawman.

[PostmodernProphet]

There is evidence that prior to 10,000 years ago, man was a hunter/gatherer, not a farmer.

wrong....you claim a LACK of evidence that there was agriculture prior to 10,000 years ago.....if a lack of evidence proves something, then we have proof of God........

[Missileman]

wrong....you claim a LACK of evidence that there was agriculture prior to 10,000 years ago.....if a lack of evidence proves something, then we have proof of God........

I know what I wrote and you have a reading disorder!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=343399&postcount=136

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=343429&postcount=140

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=343578&postcount=143

[PostmodernProphet]

???....do you somehow think it looks any smarter the second time around?......I don't give a fuck that you have no evidence of agriculture prior to 10,000 years ago...a lack of evidence is not proof.....

[Missileman]

???....do you somehow think it looks any smarter the second time around?......I don't give a fuck that you have no evidence of agriculture prior to 10,000 years ago...a lack of evidence is not proof.....

Are you retarded? There isn't a lack of evidence, there's a mountain of it. That the evidence doesn't support your conclusion is your problem not mine.

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you retarded? There isn't a lack of evidence, there's a mountain of it. That the evidence doesn't support your conclusion is your problem not mine.

no, I am not retarded....in fact, I am demonstrating clearer thought than you at the moment.....you have in fact stated there is no evidence of agricultural activity prior to 10,000 years ago.....now you say there is mountains of evidence......you contradict yourself.....

[Missileman]

no, I am not retarded....in fact, I am demonstrating clearer thought than you at the moment.....you have in fact stated there is no evidence of agricultural activity prior to 10,000 years ago.....now you say there is mountains of evidence......you contradict yourself.....

Again with the reading disorder...there is a mountain of evidence that prior to 10,000 years ago man was a hunter/gatherer not a farmer. Your "clear" thought would have us believe that 200,000 years ago, Eve gave birth to a farmer and 190,000 years of farming went by without a trace...riggghhht!

[PostmodernProphet]

Again with the reading disorder...there is a mountain of evidence that prior to 10,000 years ago man was a hunter/gatherer not a farmer. Your "clear" thought would have us believe that 200,000 years ago, Eve gave birth to a farmer and 190,000 years of farming went by without a trace...riggghhht!

you still haven't answered my question......how much archeological evidence do you expect would be left by the early stages of agriculture.....

a man figures out wheat he finds growing tastes good....he takes some home.....some gets dropped around his hut....he notices it growing the next year.....he starts intentionally dropping some close to home....he uses wooden tools......how long before he needs to use something that is sturdy enough to leave a trace behind more than, oh twenty/thirty years or so.......

[DannyR]

you still haven't answered my question......how much archeological evidence do you expect would be left by the early stages of agriculture.quite a bit actually.


II. Evidence utilized to study the origin of agriculture

A. Studying the origin of agriculture is an archaeological endeavor, the evidence utilized includes:

1. seeds, pollen grains, and fragments of plants tell what types of plants were associated with the culture and perhaps being eaten and cultivated
2. animal bones, feathers, shells or other remnants: how much of the diet was animal based, which animals
3. coprolites * fossilized feces. Can be analyzed to see what types of foods were in the diet (seeds, plant fragments) and how eaten (cooked vs. raw)
4. tools which suggest cultivation, storage, grinding or threshing
5. drawings (art) may show plants and animals important in culture
6. writings
7. radiocarbon dating used to determine dates/ages of archaeological materials, C14 half life 5,730 years

[Missileman]

you still haven't answered my question......how much archeological evidence do you expect would be left by the early stages of agriculture.....

It left enough for archeologists to determine the advent of agriculture occurred around 10,000 years ago. I'm quite certain that they accounted for degradeable implements in their determination.


a man figures out wheat he finds growing tastes good....he takes some home.....some gets dropped around his hut....he notices it growing the next year.....he starts intentionally dropping some close to home....he uses wooden tools......how long before he needs to use something that is sturdy enough to leave a trace behind more than, oh twenty/thirty years or so.......

You must think the pre-jews a race of starving morons to think that after 190,000 years the best they can come up with is scratching the ground with a stick to grow a couple plants.

[PostmodernProphet]

You must think the pre-jews a race of starving morons to think that after 190,000 years the best they can come up with is scratching the ground with a stick to grow a couple plants.

as opposed to thinking they can't be engaged in farming unless you find the pottery shards of containers they used to store their grain?


I'm quite certain that they accounted for degradeable implements in their determination.

and for those of us who don't share your faith assumptions?.....

[Missileman]

as opposed to thinking they can't be engaged in farming unless you find the pottery shards of containers they used to store their grain?

No, knowing they weren't engaged in farming because the archeological evidence says they were engaged in hunting and gathering.




and for those of us who don't share your faith assumptions?.....

The dating of agriculture has nothing to do with faith or assumptions. Archeologists base their determination on solid scientific evidence...a concept so beyond your reasoning capability that I just wasted the time it took to write it.

[PostmodernProphet]

The dating of agriculture has nothing to do with faith or assumptions. Archeologists base their determination on solid scientific evidence...a concept so beyond your reasoning capability that I just wasted the time it took to write it.

lol......

[eighballsidepocket]

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

It's become very, very stupid, and boring.........

It's totally drifted off into......?

[PostmodernProphet]

a side pocket?