Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 9:09 PM
33 online now:
AZPaul3, LamarkNewAge, Tanypteryx (3 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,505 Year: 3,542/19,786 Month: 537/1,087 Week: 127/212 Day: 43/14 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 166 of 991 (705333)
08-26-2013 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by mindspawn
08-26-2013 2:50 AM


Could you list any faults with that reasoning,

You're just making up nonsense. "Oh, the carnivores could've just ate stranded fish". That's so simplistic its silly.

"Canivores" are not a homogeneous group that can all live on the same diet. There's different categories within that group, piscivores are just one of them. Bears can't eat just fish, and I don't even think a coyote or a shrew or a weasel or a skunk would touch the stuff.

or any other possible problems with the logic of animals surviving their exit from the ship?

Herding animals and migratory animals could survive the initial exiting, but there's no way to sustain a big enough populations for the species to survive as a whole.

Hell, even just regular animals need more than two individuals to build and sustain a worldwide population.

Based on radiometric dating techniques you would appear correct, especially since I place the flood at the P-T boundary.

That is utterly ridiculous and you should stop saying that immediately. Even if radiometric dating was totally wrong, placing Noah's Flood at the P-T boundary would be completely laughable. Only the most naive and uneducated approach could lead you there. The ony reason you pick it is because its a well know global catastrophe. You're really grasping at straws to connect it to the Flood.

Could you list any further evidence why the event never happened?

We know that the entire planet has never been covered in water since humans have existed. There would be evidence of a recent genetic bottleneck in every species alive today. The evidence would be so overwhelming that it would be impossible to deny.

The fact that you really have to dig to find anything that can even remotely be tied to the story proves that the events in the story never happened.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that the story, itself, was just a rip-off of the Epic of Gilgamesh.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 2:50 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 8:02 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 167 of 991 (705337)
08-26-2013 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by mindspawn
08-26-2013 9:38 AM


quote:

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.

If you really think that you can defend that view try starting a thread on it. At this poi t of time it still seems unworkable.

quote:

Yes the conquest list was not complete, but it does show the towns of Israel in a north to south sequence, and the damged regions 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??

But Rameses is a very poor fit. For instance, his son, Merneptah, attacked Israel and his stela indicates that Israel at that time were nomads, not a Kingdom, which would fit better with the Judges period. And that is the first mention of Israel that we have.

quote:

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.

Wrong. That is Rohl making the exact same mistake as he condemned the earlier Biblical archaeologists for. The Amarna letters fit better with Canaan before Israel. Semitic settlements in Egypt are only proof of Canaanites living in Egypt (and in the case of the Hyksos, ruling a large portion - hardly slaves!)

quote:

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

And the majority of qualified Egyptologists remain unconvinced by Rohl's arguments. As for your accusation that the arguments are "strawmen" I'd need a little more evidence than your word.

And the author claims to be an Assyriologist which would be rather relevant to studying Assyrian chronology...

quote:

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

And the fact that Rohl - just like the Biblical Archaeologists - gets so much wrong is evidence that the Bible is not accurate (as if more evidence were needed at this point in time)

quote:

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.....

You mean that your original attempt at misdirection was followed up with even worse attempts at misdirection. You didn't even make any new points or give any reason to think that your original argument was any good at all. Because it isn't.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 9:38 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by kofh2u, posted 08-26-2013 11:26 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 173 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 7:44 AM PaulK has responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1895 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 168 of 991 (705348)
08-26-2013 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by PaulK
08-26-2013 10:08 AM


...Hyksos were the Jews who ruled by buying Egypt...

That is Rohl making the exact same mistake as he condemned the earlier Biblical archaeologists for. The Amarna letters fit better with Canaan before Israel. Semitic settlements in Egypt are only proof of Canaanites living in Egypt (and in the case of the Hyksos, ruling a large portion - hardly slaves!)

There is strong case for the theory that during a great famine, on the advice Joseph, Pharaoh bought up all the property in exchange for the food which Joseph had corner the market on previously.
The brothers of Joseph also participated in this exchange which ended with those earliest immigrants controlling Egypt.
After 200 years, the Egyptians managed to re-gain control under a Pharaoh, enslaved the whole upper class of that society which was called Hyksos.

In the time of Moses, 200 years later, the whole of Egypt converted to monotheism because there was no defense against the startling discovery of Uranus by Moses.

This discovery rocked all Egypt because the Planets for centuries were consider Gods, and this Unseen God as revealed by Moses could not be denied since he and Aaron pointed out to the common Egyptians on the street before discussion with Pharaoh began.

At first reluctant, the Pharaoh, (Akhenaten or Amenhotep IV, 1379-1362 BC), had no other choice but to try and appropriate the position of that unseen God on earth in order to bring together the two factions which had split Egyptians in debate.

This supposition is supported today by the genetic evidence that establishes the one common father, Aaron, for all the members of that singular set of priests called the Kohans, who are all progeny of the sons of Aaron.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2013 10:08 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1895 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 169 of 991 (705349)
08-26-2013 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by New Cat's Eye
08-25-2013 7:44 PM


Re: ... invoke magic as explanation...

Like the psychologist said to he man wearing nothing but saran wrap:
"I can clearly see you're nuts."

hahaaaaaaa....

Talking about nuts and psychologist, how that guy who killed his whole family but was too young to be treated as an adult, so they let him out of jail in no time and now, he holds a chair in psychologist at some college?

But I assume this off the topic comment was to deflect the conjectures from the centuries past?

You see that such religious organizations as the Jewish Kabbalahists, saw the "flood" story as a "carrying over" of Modern man, out-of-Africa, even BEFORE the world realized that there had been a mass extinction of lower forms and species o humans 40,000 years ago???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-25-2013 7:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2013 11:55 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 170 of 991 (705351)
08-26-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by kofh2u
08-26-2013 11:36 AM


I can't find enough meaningful conjecture to even begin to try to communicate with you about the topics you speak of.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by kofh2u, posted 08-26-2013 11:36 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 171 of 991 (705358)
08-26-2013 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Coyote
08-26-2013 9:28 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I really appreciate that, and have looked at that thread and am planning to participate. Unfortunately time constraints limit me in the meantime.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2013 9:28 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 08-26-2013 2:43 PM mindspawn has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 172 of 991 (705380)
08-26-2013 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by mindspawn
08-26-2013 1:10 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Perhaps Message 3 might help saves us all some time. It covers what must be seen if any of the Biblical Flood myths were true. It's easy since it is really simple, relies on nothing but what the Bible stories actually say, doesn't matter when the flood happened, requires no dating methods that you might question and absolutely refutes any version of the Biblical Flood.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by mindspawn, posted 08-26-2013 1:10 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 3:00 AM jar has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 173 of 991 (705504)
08-28-2013 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by PaulK
08-26-2013 10:08 AM


If you really think that you can defend that view try starting a thread on it. At this poi t of time it still seems unworkable.

Been there, done that: It seems people like unnecessary detail and so only Percy was bothering with attempting alternative explanations for the proven huge sediment movements of the P-T boundary. Others seemed to miss the geological points I was making. Here is my summation in one thread (post 502)
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=16606&mpp=5...

And please see post 295 in this thread:
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=16031&mpp=5...

But Rameses is a very poor fit. For instance, his son, Merneptah, attacked Israel and his stela indicates that Israel at that time were nomads, not a Kingdom, which would fit better with the Judges period. And that is the first mention of Israel that we have.

Wrong. That is Rohl making the exact same mistake as he condemned the earlier Biblical archaeologists for. The Amarna letters fit better with Canaan before Israel. Semitic settlements in Egypt are only proof of Canaanites living in Egypt (and in the case of the Hyksos, ruling a large portion - hardly slaves!)


Ramses II attacked Jerusalem. Yes many Hebrews, even King David, were nomads , no problem there. The Armana letters describe Labaya, he fits in with the biblical Saul. And the "Habiru" tribes are describing the Hebrews.

The Hyskos arrived in Egypt after the Israelites had left.

You mean that your original attempt at misdirection was followed up with even worse attempts at misdirection. You didn't even make any new points or give any reason to think that your original argument was any good at all. Because it isn't.

You seem to be missing my point. My point is that language, large towns, architecture, first settlments all started in Turkey:
http://archaeology.about.com/...ionandmagic/a/catalhoyuk.htm
http://www.nature.com/...for-indo-european-languages-1.11270
http://www.nature.com/.../2003/031124/full/news031124-6.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...chaeology/gobekli-tepe.html
http://www.anatolianfestival.org/...s/birth-of-civilizations

The bible says Nimrod started the following towns: Erech, Babel, Calneh, Akkad. Erech and Babel have been discovered, Akkad is repeatedly referred to in ancient documents. Calneh is still to be discovered.

Early history of mankind fits the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2013 10:08 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2013 8:22 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 174 of 991 (705505)
08-28-2013 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by New Cat's Eye
08-26-2013 9:57 AM


You're just making up nonsense. "Oh, the carnivores could've just ate stranded fish". That's so simplistic its silly.

"Canivores" are not a homogeneous group that can all live on the same diet. There's different categories within that group, piscivores are just one of them. Bears can't eat just fish, and I don't even think a coyote or a shrew or a weasel or a skunk would touch the stuff.

True hey. Do you feel its impossible for animals to survive if you release them off a boat into the wilds? Which ones that we see today could not survive that event? Name one that would have battled to survive?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-26-2013 9:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by JonF, posted 08-28-2013 8:17 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 177 by Tangle, posted 08-28-2013 8:58 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-28-2013 9:39 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 08-28-2013 11:55 AM mindspawn has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 175 of 991 (705506)
08-28-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by mindspawn
08-28-2013 8:02 AM


Do you feel its impossible for animals to survive if you release them off a boat into the wilds?

Irrelevant. Substitute "wasteland barren of any plants or animals" for "wilds".

With that substitution, yes.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 8:02 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 176 of 991 (705507)
08-28-2013 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by mindspawn
08-28-2013 7:44 AM


quote:

Been there, done that

OK the the Flood story has been investigated and found to be untrue.

quote:

Ramses II attacked Jerusalem. Yes many Hebrews, even King David, were nomads , no problem there. The Armana letters describe Labaya, he fits in with the biblical Saul. And the "Habiru" tribes are describing the Hebrews.

Attacking Jerusalem is not sufficient. And Rohl's intepretation of the Amarna letters is a other example of his jumping to conclusions. And your own argument is worse. Are you really claiming that David was a contemporary of Merneptah AND that there was no Kingdom of Israel at the time Merneptah attacked ? How can you possible reconcile that with the idea that Merneptah's father and predecessor was the Biblical Shishak ?

quote:

The Hyskos arrived in Egypt after the Israelites had left.

Really ? Then which Canaanite settlements do you attribute to the Israelites ?

quote:

You seem to be missing my point. My point is that language, large towns, architecture, first settlments all started in Turkey:

Well, you're certainly wrong about language. There are plenty of languages outside the Indo-European family. Such as Hebrew, for one.

And you certainly miss MY point which is that even to the extent that you are correct, it has nothing to do with the Biblical spread of humanity.

quote:

The bible says Nimrod started the following towns: Erech, Babel, Calneh, Akkad. Erech and Babel have been discovered, Akkad is repeatedly referred to in ancient documents. Calneh is still to be discovered.

And your point is that the author of Genesis knew the names of some major ancient cities ?
That really isn't very impressive.

quote:

Early history of mankind fits the bible.

It really, really doesn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 7:44 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by mindspawn, posted 08-30-2013 4:59 AM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6668
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 177 of 991 (705512)
08-28-2013 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by mindspawn
08-28-2013 8:02 AM


mindspawn writes:

True hey. Do you feel its impossible for animals to survive if you release them off a boat into the wilds? Which ones that we see today could not survive that event? Name one that would have battled to survive?

Pretty much every living thing on the planet would have been killed in the first week of the flood. All vegitation has long gone. The vast majority of fish would be dead as they would not be able to stand the change in salinity.

The earth's top soil has disappeared and the covering water would be full of suspended particles which would cut the light off photosythensing plants and plankton.

In short, those species of both plant and animal not immediately killed by drowning or extreme turbulence would be dead because their food chain has gone.

So exactly what are the herbivores supposed to eat - there are no plants? The carnivores would, of course, immeditaely kill and eat the herbivores so the point is a bit moot.

(Ps: I love the idea that the carnivores catch stranded fish. I watch the tide come in and out every day and have yet to find a stranded fish - they tend to follow the water back down the beach. But that's assuming that any fish had survived, which I doubt. )


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 8:02 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 991 (705519)
08-28-2013 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by mindspawn
08-28-2013 8:02 AM


Do you feel its impossible for animals to survive if you release them off a boat into the wilds?

What do you mean?

Which ones that we see today could not survive that event?

I don't know what you mean by releasing them "off a boat" nor "into the wilds". That could be describing all kinds of situations.

If you talking about something like the situation in Noah's Flood, I've already explained some of the problems and you have yet to address those.

Name one that would have battled to survive?

Herding animals and migratory animals could survive the initial exiting, but there's no way to sustain a big enough populations for the species to survive as a whole.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 8:02 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by mindspawn, posted 08-30-2013 2:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16227
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 179 of 991 (705523)
08-28-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by mindspawn
08-28-2013 8:02 AM


mindspawn writes:

Do you feel its impossible for animals to survive if you release them off a boat into the wilds?


Just FYI, "living off the land" doesn't mean literally living off the land. Not many species can eat dirt. It means living off things that live on the land - and immediately after the flood there weren't any.

mindspawn writes:

Name one that would have battled to survive?


If there were two cats and two mice, the mice would be extinct by suppertime.

Edited by ringo, : Splling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by mindspawn, posted 08-28-2013 8:02 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 08-28-2013 1:39 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 188 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 5:20 AM ringo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 180 of 991 (705534)
08-28-2013 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ringo
08-28-2013 11:55 AM


and humans?
The humans would eat most every animal which would leave only the insects, fungi and germs. They would likely do well.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 08-28-2013 11:55 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
67NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019