Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does The Flood Add up?
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 50 of 298 (306627)
04-26-2006 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by inkorrekt
04-24-2006 9:39 PM


Re: Evidence for Noah's ark
Satellite pictures have shown the Ark with exact dimensions described in the Bible. There is a Scientist couple who had the passion to search for it. They actually went there to Mount Ararat and have collected evidence. He lives in my town. I want to locate them and meet them. A Question for everyone: Why would that structure sit on a mountain with snow covered all over if it was not for the flood?
In the absence of a source, I am assuming that this refers to the alleged discovery on Mt Ararat, descibed here.
It is in fact a natural feature, caused by erosion of folded strata. There is a full description of this here, including a photograph that shows not one, but three boat shaped-structures. If you maintain that the Ark has been found, you must either:
1: Explain away the other apparant arks
or
2: Accept multiple (an non-Biblical) arks.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 9:39 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ThingsChange, posted 04-26-2006 1:32 PM MarkAustin has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 55 of 298 (307313)
04-28-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by CACTUSJACKmankin
04-28-2006 7:16 AM


Re: Evidence for Noah's ark
There's probably no wood anywhere on that mountain, cause the flood never happened. A global flood would leave a flobal, uniform, geologic deposit layer, which doesn't exist. Also, There can't be two of every animal and a single human family, they'd have gone extinct from the genetic problems caused by tens of generations of inbreeding. In ecology, a population with good genetic diversity is known as a breeding population, that requires several thousand individuals. Try fitting 5,000 of each animal on a boat no matter how loosely you define a kind. The genetic and biologic nail in the coffin is population bottlenecks. A bottleneck is when a species goes through a period of low numbers. Having only two would qualify as a severe and irreparable bottleneck. Bottlenecks show up in the genes, and animals that have recent bottlenecks have them at different times, not the same time as Noah's story would predict. Pandas have their bottleneck at 34,000 years ago and we have one 70,000 years ago. The uniform Geologic layer and the universal bottlenecking are two pieces of physical evidence that would exist if Noah's story happened, and neither occur. This never happened.
There are other problems with low species numbers.
There appears to be a minimum size at which human societies can exist. Studies of the colonisation of the Pacific by the Polynesians show that settlements under a certain size failed. Similarly, archaeological studies of the Aborigines in Australia where colonies were trapped when rising sea water split Tasmania and other islands from the mainland show that the colonies on the smaller islands failed. These number were far greater than the human population on the Ark. Similarly, the surviving isolated populations regressed technically, again lack of numbers prevented them maintaining advanced (for them) technologies.
Further, some species require numbers to breed. Take the Passenger Pigeon. Exterminated by Man, yes. However, Man did not shoot every one of the last relict population. Without s sufficiently large flock, they simply stopped breeding. Other species act similarly.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 04-28-2006 7:16 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 77 of 298 (308430)
05-02-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by inkorrekt
04-28-2006 10:58 AM


Re: Evidence for Noah's ark
You can deny that the flood never occured. There are ancient civilizations around the world which were destroyed. They have historical literatures which do not even have any references to the Bible. So, either these records are wrong or you are wrong. Both cannot be true. Good try.
Talk Origins
A couple of points.
The existence of other flood myths is evidence against the veracity of the Biblical flood. If the Biblica flood is literally true, then there would have been no-one left to transmit the story.
The possibility of contaimination is also present. Storytellers would hear the missionaries preach and pick up and adapt the stories for themselves. I read once of a North American Indian tribe, divided into three(?) subgroups. Two had had extensive contacts with missionaries, and flood stories; the third was isolated, and had no such story. I'll try to find and post a reference.
Further, as has been pointed out, most areas where people live are prone to flooding, and this makes the multi-origin explanation likely.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by inkorrekt, posted 04-28-2006 10:58 AM inkorrekt has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024