Does The Flood Add up?

No, that's not really how it works. The Mayan year that we call 3114 B.C. is, to the Maya, the year zero. Their calendar was operating years before that. From the book Lost Languages by Andrew Robinson:

quote:

---

The Maya chose to correlate their zero on the 'long count' with the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumku in the 'calendar round'... [which] correlates with 13 August 3114 B.C in our Gregorian calendar.
...
Mayanists give this date as 0.0.0.0.0-which is the beginning of the current 'great cycle' of time, due to end on 23 December AD 2012.

---

Now, you may have found an arbitrary coincidence, but I'm not even ready to give you that. Based on what others have pointed out, your chronology of the Bible is off to begin with.It truly is mysterious why the Mayan picked that date, but it is no-bit mysterious as to why you picked it .Also, if this date is so important, why is it only seen in one ancient culture? Literalists will always try to find correlations between their story and reality, always completely ignoring any contradictions. It seems to me that this is exactly what you are doing, though poorly.Jon

If God can do this, and God can do that, and then God does this, that, and the other thing over there, then why does God bother having Noah build an ark; why does He make him take all the animals on?If God was all-knowing, He would certainly know that with His UNLIMITED power, all He would have to do is kill 'em all off, and start over from scratch. Unless, He had already forgotten what He had made.God did it arguments don't logically hold up, and certainly not in a science forum.Of course, you can try the old "God works in mysterious ways" thing too, but I don't know how well that will fly either... Jon

That's really nothing new. Rarely on these forums do the good questions get answered. Some of the best posts made (and directed at Creationists) get no imput from them.Jon

That well sums up the whole argument, yes.I've heard of this one many times too--a sort of "hyper evolution" as I've heard it been called. It really is an admision to "evolution", though just not of the scientific kind.Oh, yes, and this question you've just asked is very much the kind not likely to be touched by the Creationists. We will just have to sit around and guess at what their explanation is (if they even have one).They say we don't understand their logic, and when we ask for an explanation, they go plain cold on us. I just don't get it myself.Jon

Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You might make more sense replying to someone to whom your argument might pertain. You see, I haven't said squat about hay and its density. But, since you've shot this reply at me, I will stick out an answer as best I can.I really think this all goes down to what the animals ate on the ark. If you are a traveller on a ship and you want to bring hay to the place where you will land, then bringing along just the seeds is fine. However, if you need the hay on your voyage to feed some animals, then it's not going to work to have it all in the form of seeds. I mean, unless Noah was planting and harvesting the stuff in a LARGE garden (field) somewhere on the deck of the ship.And even if he did transport it all as just grains, then we still have to tackle the problem of what the animals ate whilst they were on the boat for so long. Even if Noah was going stingy on the food (once/3 days, maybe), that is still a LOT of food to be dishing out to all those animals. Where did he store it? Also, how can he feed thos animals? The moment he would've finished finally giving food to the last of the animals, the first ones he fed would've died from starvation--it having been so long (from the time it takes to feed an entire planet's worth of animals) since that first animal ate.The topic is: Does the flood add up?The answer is: NO!Jon

Except it makes no mention of pyramid building in the Bible. Nor do the pyramids show any evidence of having been built by Israelites.Another thing, all of your arguments hinge on assumptions and belief that the Bible is accurate to the word. You say "if we assume this, and then assume this, all these assumptions and the conclusions we can draw from them are self-supporting" (not in those words). The problem is that you have nothing but assumptions.You can use the Bible as evidence in some places, but not here, these are the Science Forums. You need some scientific evidence. You can't just come up with one assumption after another in support of your view. Even if the math works out, that doesn't mean anything, because all of the evidence works against you.Jon