|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Fair enough. I don't see that the releasing necessarily involved supernatural intervention, the wording isn't clear enough to be sure. But you could: that's why you question just how did Noah go about releasing all those animals without encountering all the problems we'd expect to happen.
But whether its God himself controlling the releasing, or Noah walking them off the ark in a controlled fashion, or even just a wild melee of animal slaughter we do not have enough information about the animals on the ark to say this or that would definitely have occurred. What we have enough information to say about, is that the entire event never actually happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Please note that I hadn't even posted the full extent of my proof for vast sedimentation during the P-T boundary across vast flood plains on all continents. I believe other creationists have neglected to look in the right place to find the evidence of the worldwide flood, but the evidence is there in numerous scientific journals. The P-T boundary does not work for the biblical flood because that event occurred just over 250 million years ago, roughly some 248 million years before the advent of genus Homo. Oh, just as an aside, it was perhaps some 160 million years ago that the first true mammals appeared (think shrews). The first larger mammals were perhaps 100 million years later. (In other words, no mammals at all for the ark.) What it comes down to is that there are absolutely irreconcilable problems between your claims and actual events established by a couple of hundred years of scientific research. The magnitude of the error you are making, if put into other terms, would have Jesus and the apostles running around just under two weeks ago. That is the size of your error! Do you see why your ideas receive no respect here?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You have no proof to post.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
But you could: that's why you question just how did Noah go about releasing all those animals without encountering all the problems we'd expect to happen. What problems do you expect to happen? Its obvious that the bible story does not give a lot of information, there could have been proportionally minimal carnivores, and carnivores could have been eating fresh stranded fish as the waters receded, as two possibilities that would ensure majority survival. So I feel that I have dealt with the carnivores eating the herbivores problem. Could you list any faults with that reasoning, or any other possible problems with the logic of animals surviving their exit from the ship?
What we have enough information to say about, is that the entire event never actually happened. Based on radiometric dating techniques you would appear correct, especially since I place the flood at the P-T boundary. However the basis for radiometric dating is disputable. Could you list any further evidence why the event never happened?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
The P-T boundary does not work for the biblical flood because that event occurred just over 250 million years ago, roughly some 248 million years before the advent of genus Homo. Oh, just as an aside, it was perhaps some 160 million years ago that the first true mammals appeared (think shrews). The first larger mammals were perhaps 100 million years later. (In other words, no mammals at all for the ark.) What it comes down to is that there are absolutely irreconcilable problems between your claims and actual events established by a couple of hundred years of scientific research. The magnitude of the error you are making, if put into other terms, would have Jesus and the apostles running around just under two weeks ago. That is the size of your error! Do you see why your ideas receive no respect here? The more I look into it, the entire theory of evolution rests on currently measured rates of decay of heavy isotopes. Without that theoretical basis for measuring timeframes, geology, archaeology and all else fits in perfectly with the so-called biblical myths. Its theoretically possible that even the weather can affect the rate of decay of heavy elements, and so the whole theory of evolution is currently resting on very shaky foundations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You have no proof to post. I find that a strange and unscientific statement, considering that I have just referred you to a link filled with evidence of worldwide flooding at the PT boundary. At this time a major marine transgression and regression are known to science, which in itself is an indication of worldwide flooding. In addition there is major evidence across all continents of massive movements of sediment at that time. Many floodplains transforming from a sedimentary underfill situation to a sedimentary overfill situation. There has been much scientific discussion for the reason for this phenomenon. Considering that the earth's terrain was largely made up of huge flat wide floodplains at the time, this strange phenomenon of a sudden increase in sedimentation in floodplains is significant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I am interested in whether your "sidepoint" is truly justifiable. Apparently it isn't. The siege and capture of a city is not a mythic event. A global flood is. The comparison does nothing to make a world-wide flood any more likely (if you wished to argue that the flood story was a greatly exaggerated version of a large but localised flood you might have had a point). One might also point out that it is not that the flood story has not been investigated. It HAS been investigated and found to be untrue.
quote: If the identification of Shishak with Shoshenq is the only Biblical event in question, then it is hardly true to say that the Bible is the main pillar. And that identification has not been refuted yet.
quote: And it would be a bit odd for an army coming from the South to get so far North while ignoring the Southern kingdom of Judah. Also, the surviving portion of the Egyptian record does not mention Meggido, so we do not have a complete record of which cities were attacked, it's not proven that Shoshonq did not raid Jerusalem, as the Bible says that Shishak did.
quote: I think that we're veering well off-topic here. But there's plenty on the web, such as this How to Fail a Test of Time quote: In other words we shouldn't look at the evidence of human occupation - the evidence we SHOULD be looking at if we want to trace the spread of humanity. Because you know that if we did look at it we,d see that it doesn't support you. Exactly my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You have no proof to post. I find that a strange and unscientific statement, considering that I have just referred you to a link filled with evidence of worldwide flooding at the PT boundary. If you first deal with the evidence in that link, then I can post further evidence for the flood at the P-T boundary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
A global flood is. The comparison does nothing to make a world-wide flood any more likely (if you wished to argue that the flood story was a greatly exaggerated version of a large but localised flood you might have had a point). One might also point out that it is not that the flood story has not been investigated. It HAS been investigated and found to be untrue I believe the evidence for a worldwide flood is at the P-T boundary. Please refer to the following link where I laid out some of my evidence for a worldwide flood:EvC Forum: Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go? I have a lot more evidence than that, but kindly deal with the link first, and following that I can give you further evidence for a flood then.
If the identification of Shishak with Shoshenq is the only Biblical event in question, then it is hardly true to say that the Bible is the main pillar. And that identification has not been refuted yet. And it would be a bit odd for an army coming from the South to get so far North while ignoring the Southern kingdom of Judah. Also, the surviving portion of the Egyptian record does not mention Meggido, so we do not have a complete record of which cities were attacked, it's not proven that Shoshonq did not raid Jerusalem, as the Bible says that Shishak did. It has been refuted. Shoshenk is not Shishak. Just like modern times, various countries had their own enemies and alliances. Shoshenk specifically attacked a series of towns that are all in a list and all existed in Israel. Jerusalem was the major city in the entire area at the time and yet was not on that list of conquered towns. The biblical Shishak however attacked a series of towns that existed only in Judah and not in Israel. These are two different Pharaohs. Ramses however did attack Jerusalem and is a better candidate for the biblical Shishak, he is the only Pharaoh in Egypt ever associated with an attack on Jerusalem. This is recorded on a tower near Karnak, which was built by Ramses.
In other words we shouldn't look at the evidence of human occupation - the evidence we SHOULD be looking at if we want to trace the spread of humanity. Because you know that if we did look at it we,d see that it doesn't support you. Exactly my point. Sorry I'm not following your logic here. I pointed out that the first signs of human occupation are in Turkey. The first recorded settlements. This fits in with the bible's flood account.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I think that that is a topic for a new thread. But, have you dealt with all the issues raised in earlier discussion yet ? Because if you haven't there isn't any real point in going further.
quote: Megiddo isn't on the surviving portions of the list, either, but we know that it was conquered and a stela raised to mark the victory. That's why the list falls short of proof - it's incomplete.
quote: The point is that if you want to look at the spread of humanity you look for the earliest human occupation. You try to distract from that evidence by pointing at the spread of architecture. The attempt at misdirection is painfully obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You are free to find what I say strange but unfortunately for you, the Biblical Flood has bee totally refuted.
Please understand that it doesn't matter how much evidence (and again, you have no evidence) for a Biblical Flood, if either of the Biblical Flood myths in Genesis had happened there is one piece of evidence that must be there, and it is not. It is as if you claimed to have hit the target but there is no hole on the target. Sorry, but as a Christian I really need to tell you to stop claiming the Biblical Flood happened, You are only making Christians look stupid.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, what you find strange is irrelevant in this particular case. And what I said is very much scientific.
If either of the flood myths found in Genesis were true, one particular piece of evidence MUST be seen, and it is not. There is no need of dating, no need of pretending that dating doesn't work and it is absolutely conclusive. The Biblical Floods never happened.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The more I look into it, the entire theory of evolution rests on currently measured rates of decay of heavy isotopes. Without that theoretical basis for measuring timeframes, geology, archaeology and all else fits in perfectly with the so-called biblical myths.
Nope. Educated people realized long before radioactivity was discovered that the features of the Earth were formed over many millions of years, even billions. I recommend The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood. See also Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.pdf. All that radiometric dating has given us is the ability to make much more accurate measurements of age. Which, of course, is plenty.
Its theoretically possible that even the weather can affect the rate of decay of heavy elements, and so the whole theory of evolution is currently resting on very shaky foundations.
Nope. Or, let's see the theory of how weather affects the decay rate. The ToE does not depend on nuclear decay rates once we know that the Earth is many millions of years old (see above). The classic study of decay rates is Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates. I can supply a PDF if you give me an email address. How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates is good. Briefly, the only way to significantly change decay rates involves things like heating the Earth to be hotter than the Sun's core.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The more I look into it, the entire theory of evolution rests on currently measured rates of decay of heavy isotopes. Without that theoretical basis for measuring timeframes, geology, archaeology and all else fits in perfectly with the so-called biblical myths. Its theoretically possible that even the weather can affect the rate of decay of heavy elements, and so the whole theory of evolution is currently resting on very shaky foundations. Based on comments such as this I started a tread just for evidence that radiocarbon and other radiometric forms of dating are inaccurate. Please present your evidence on that thread. That would be the courteous thing to do, as the thread was started just for you.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I think that that is a topic for a new thread. But, have you dealt with all the issues raised in earlier discussion yet ? Because if you haven't there isn't any real point in going further. True, it is a topic for another thread. the only reason i brought it up was in response to your comment that the flood story "HAS been investigated and found to be untrue." That comment I felt was worthy of some sort of defense of my position that in fact there is evidence of a worldwide flood.
Megiddo isn't on the surviving portions of the list, either, but we know that it was conquered and a stela raised to mark the victory. That's why the list falls short of proof - it's incomplete. Yes the conquest list was not complete, but it does show the towns of Israel in a sequence, and the damaged regions of the list fit in with the missing Megiddo, but do not fit in with an attack on Judah or Jerusalem. Megiddo was an Israeli town, Jerusalem was a Judah town. There is no sign that Shoshenk attacked Judah, and every sign that Ramses attacked Judah and Jerusalem. If the one pharoah fits perfectly and the other does not, why choose the one that does not?? And if Ramses is Shishak, suddenly the bible archaeology makes sense, and even letters between Palestine and Egypt confirm biblical stories. Semitic settlements in Egypt then confirm the Jewish exile. Israel/Judah are confirmed as late bronze age kingdoms. The wealth of Jerusalem according to the bible then matches the wealth of late bronze age Jerusalem. The conquest matches the fall of bronze age Palestinian cities. ie it ALL falls into place. By the way , the link you provided refuting Rohl is based mainly on strawman arguments from a layman. I've got the book, Rohl is a qualified Egyptologist.http://plagueofmice.anarchic-teapot.net/...il-a-test-of-time The reason i mentioned Rohl, is that the bible is a true record of human history, not a book of myths. This is relevant to this thread. Rohl reveals this link between history and the bible.
The point is that if you want to look at the spread of humanity you look for the earliest human occupation. You try to distract from that evidence by pointing at the spread of architecture. The attempt at misdirection is painfully obvious. I personally have been fascinated with that ancient Turkey temple complex, the first human buildings of history and i felt that was relevant. But when you mentioned human occupation I then looked that up as well, and discovered it was also in Turkey, both the first cave dwellings and the first towns. Rather than misdirection I felt I had a good point initially, and then followed it up with even better points. Oh well..... Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024