We have not yet reached the advancement of Noah's era.

Noah has many names though, depending on the religion. which one should we call him?

Ziusudra
Atrahasis
Ut-napištim
Xisuthrus
Deucalion
Nuh

a reply to: amazing

*Similar stories, featuring differing characters with different names

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: amazing

*Similar stories, featuring differing characters with different names

True, but, in my opinion, the Noah story was derived from these stories. So any "Historical" research should begin there, Genesis came later.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: amazing

*Similar stories, featuring differing characters with different names

True, but, in my opinion, the Noah story was derived from these stories. So any "Historical" research should begin there, Genesis came later.

Yep, and therein lies the problem... History and Myth are not the same, despite their relationship.

originally posted by: skalla
That would mean that the Bible's description was false though, seeing as the Ark and the events surrounding it are very clearly described.

Also, where is the spaceship factory and the fuel refining plants, why do we not find other spaceships and hopw come its all just in isolation?

Aliens?

Please

The wise man knows that there are more things he doesn't know than things that he does know.

You speak like a fool.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well you really should study the sciences better because science IS privy to this expertise and has determined that a global flood is a bunch of bullocks.Text

Krazy. try being more civil in your posting instead of so Wikipedia. After the course in biology I would think you should study a little more yourself.

My original post on Noah's flood was in response to Skella who had asked "Please scientifically explain where a volume of water sufficient to flood every part of land on the globe simultaneously came from, and then disappeared to." At the onset of my post was "Just a theory of mine." I nor you are an expert on this matter and if we were we should not be in this Forum related to religion. Everyone knows that the sciences have some knowledge and everyone should know that the sciences are also theoretical. Don't be silly and argue that day is night in the same place.

Now all you had to say was that you believe that the flood was bogus and people would know your intent. You do not know for a fact that the global flood did not happen. You have claimed a fact and we would like to see the factual evidence. The same as when you parrot Wikipedia in producing your 65 million years calendar. It is not there and never will be there. It is not a fact because it is a belief. Your science politicians give a few facts mingled with a whole bunch of theology. Makes good reading and great for grants but that's all.

While there's strong evidence of several mass localised floods, there's no evidence of a worldwide one and not enough water on Earth to flood it all (it would require trillions and trillions of tonnes of water for sea level to get anywhere near the alps.

The story of Noah is more of a chinese whisper folklore tale -

do you honestly believe one man can single handedly gather two of every species dotted around the world, make sure they're fertile/don't eat each other/aren't inbred or with genetic defects?

Could he then then build a several mile long boat to contain them all in out of materials that would break under the stress of water and forces?

How did the animals breathe in a water tight and airtight boat for several months - years?

How did all the animals make their way back to their original homes without leaving any evidence?

It's by far one of the silliest tales in the Bible - without strong proofs of how the above happened it should only be treated as a fairy tale.

a reply to: bastion

And how come Kangaroos are only in Australia. You figure if they came off the ark, there would be records, artwork, fossils, stories etc, of Kanga's all over the world or at least all over the middle east, yes. Unless one of Ut-napištim offspring took them too Australia, but then, why there and how did he get there? Boggles the mind, this does!

a reply to: amazing

Precisley, and that's just one of millions of creatures that live in only one very isolated locations - such as completely unique eco systems in deep underground flooded caves and 1000m cliff tops that are only accessible with breathing apparatus/climbing gear to get to. Or creatures so small they can only be seen under powerful microscopes, let alone be captured.

Come to think of it I can't remember the story ever mentioning Noah doing the same with plants, which obviously would have all been wiped out in the alleged flood.

I've no problem with being religious or following the general teachings of the Bible as most of Jesus' alleged teachings are very good and required for society to function and grow (i.e love thy neighbour) but Noah's story is so full of holes it makes no sense.

a reply to: theMediator

You are just changing the story to match your fantasy - make it up as you go along if you like but we are trying to deal with what is written in the Bible.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now all you had to say was that you believe that the flood was bogus and people would know your intent. You do not know for a fact that the global flood did not happen. You have claimed a fact and we would like to see the factual evidence.

Actually, we do know for a fact that there was no global flood. Floods leave records in the geological strata that date floods to specific time periods and there is no evidence in the geological strata that a single flood happened at the same time worldwide. That, in itself, proves that there was never a worldwide flood. However, the onus is always on the person claiming a positive (ie. that something did happen) to prove their case. Where is your evidence that there was a worldwide flood?

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: amazing

Precisley, and that's just one of millions of creatures that live in only one very isolated locations - such as completely unique eco systems in deep underground flooded caves and 1000m cliff tops that are only accessible with breathing apparatus/climbing gear to get to. Or creatures so small they can only be seen under powerful microscopes, let alone be captured.

Come to think of it I can't remember the story ever mentioning Noah doing the same with plants, which obviously would have all been wiped out in the alleged flood.

I've no problem with being religious or following the general teachings of the Bible as most of Jesus' alleged teachings are very good and required for society to function and grow (i.e love thy neighbour) but Noah's story is so full of holes it makes no sense.

Yeah! Noah's story doesn't make much sense. Take away the talk of water and flooding and focus on the animal and plant life and those issues and it falls apart.

originally posted by: amazing
Yeah! Noah's story doesn't make much sense. Take away the talk of water and flooding and focus on the animal and plant life and those issues and it falls apart.

Let's not forget Noah's life, how long took him to build ark.

So - Noah lived 950 years, witch is bit longer then his dady, Lamech who lived only 777 years, while Noah's son Shem lived just 600 years.



From the same source:

The pre-flood Biblical patriarchs lived incredibly long lives compared to today. Post-flood the life expectancy of a person dropped to the modern average lifespan of a person of around 70 to 80 years. Plotting the lifespans of the patriarchs on a graph can show us their decay curve, which can then be compared to the perfect exponential decay curve (which has a 1 for its coefficient of determination). With this information it can be reasonably proven that the stated number of years lived for the people found in Genesis is literally true.

Source: www.biblestudy.org...

You just have to love explanation made by religious people willing by all means to prove that their fairy tales is any more true then Red Riding Hood and rest of fairy tales.

a reply to: bastion

While there's strong evidence of several mass localised floods, there's no evidence of a worldwide one and not enough water on Earth to flood it all (it would require trillions and trillions of tonnes of water for sea level to get anywhere near the alps. The story of Noah is more of a chinese whisper folklore tale -

That is your religion. That is your belief. That is not a proven fact. First of all don't reference the Chinese in your arm chair science politics. There is no proof that the Chinese were even there.

Now as I have tried to explain to another armchair science politician let me spiel a practical theory. The present world is estimated as 71 percent water and 29 percent land. You nor any one actually knows that ratio back in the antediluvian
era of Noah. No one actually knows but what if that ratio was not the same? What if that ratio was 80 percent water and ten percent land? Even so lets assume that the present ratio is the same as in those fabled days of Noah.

The average depth of all the 71 percent known water is about 14,000 fest or 4267 m. What percentage of that 71 percent at 14,000 feet deep would it take to cover that 29 percent of land and still leave enough water to cover the 71 percent? In other words if you raise the sea bed by a great cataclysmic event to displace half of the depth of the waters would it then cover the remaining 29 percent? Don't assume that it must cover Mt. Everest which is about thirty thousand feet above this present sea level because you have no proof that Mt Everest was even a mountain at that time. No one can verify the world in the antediluvian period. That is if this flood is indeed true.

Is it possible that this earth had a great expansion from its interior to actually heave the sea beds into great mountains and displace the waters to cover the entire land? To what depth? I have no idea and neither do you. That would depend upon the height of the tallest hill or mountain where land life existed at this time of the inner expansion of the earth.

Then we also have the belief that there are oceans beneath our known 71 percent oceans of waters. This is also believed by the authors of the flood account in Genesis Gen 7:11 as it describes that "all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Most people are not told that the world faced a great cataclysmic event and not just a flood of rain. The rain is not believed to be the entire cause of the flood but only that the salt and fresh waters became one centralized waters.

Text -do you honestly believe one man can single handedly gather two of every species dotted around the world, make sure they're fertile/don't eat each other/aren't inbred or with genetic defects?

No I do not believe that. Noah had his family to help and did not do this work single handed. Out of this 29 percent land mass, was all 29 percent inhabited? What if only a small percentage was inhabited? Is that possible? What if God created after the flood? Is that possible? Where does it say in the bible that God stopped creating forever? We have a lot of things that we do not know that you assume are known to you and the geologists. Should not science have proof of their science unless it is stated as a theory?

Mt. Everest is about 30,000 feet above sea level today. What was its height 5,000 years ago? What year was it born? Do you have any idea? Where is the literature that tells us anything about this Mt. Everest out side of your science guessing? When a geologist or any science for that matter uses the "million years exclamation" as a fact how do they actually know for a certainty that their "million years" existed a million years ago? They guess and call it estimate.

I have been into arguments here on ATS with people who insist that I cannot even prove 2,000 BCE and they are correct. I cannot prove Abraham or Moses or Noah. Yet these same people expect me to believe 65 million years ago. Come on now. Science does have some facts but science throws in an awful lot of garbage to build their science. When you can show me that the dating formulas are constant throughout all of the sciences then I will consider some of their clap trap and even then their outrageous propaganda would require almost all science books revised.

Could he then then build a several mile long boat to contain them all in out of materials that would break under the stress of water and forces? How did the animals breathe in a water tight and airtight boat for several months - years? How did all the animals make their way back to their original homes without leaving any evidence?

Boats were all made from wood or reeds as recently as the twentieth century and fleets of wooden ships sailed for hundreds of years proving that they can survive. We do not really know what percentage of wood to reeds was used in Noah's boat but models have been made with the biblical stats and have been proven to be effective. A thorough scientific study does confirm that it was possible as described in the biblical account.

As far as water tight is concerned does not mean the boat was air tight. I would suppose that there were ventilation shafts as well as the top covering for the forty days of rain.

Feeding the animals may have been no problem as there was abundant sea life which was not destroyed. There are also known herbs that will sedate life as well as cause suspended animation or hibernation. (Bears are one example) -

As far as the time period in the ark is concerned. Today there is a great study being conducted as to antediluvian time compared to our time today. It is suspected that Noah was on a six month clock of one of our equinox periods. A lot of evidence points to this theory but a vast amount of ancient literature must be examined to verify this theory. In other words biblical science is true science but is denigrated by the overwhelming atheist world of science.

Text It's by far one of the silliest tales in the Bible - without strong proofs of how the above happened it should only be treated as a fairy tale.

That is your belief but remember that we are entitled to our belief also. We call our belief theology but you call your belief secular science. That is your religion.

a reply to: bastion

Come to think of it I can't remember the story ever mentioning Noah doing the same with plants, which obviously would have all been wiped out in the alleged flood.

You may be wrong in what you believe. Land plant life may have been uprooted to the point that the waters were covered with vegetation which could mean that there were seeds of plants as well as the plants themselves that survived a period of about 130 days. This has been tested and confirmed several times over.

According to biblical accounts the waters did not cover the entire earth for one lunar year.

Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

This tells that some of the land was covered by water 150 days but that common sense also tells you that not all of the land was covered 150 days. Also consider that perhaps seeds were gathered by Noah and planted just as the grape vine was planted after the flood. Yes it is possible that trees as well as plant life did survive the flood.

originally posted by: Seede

Science relies on testable evidence. Religion is the performance of ritual on behalf of a supernatural deity/deities not based on testable evidence. Where is the supernatural deity in science? There is none. It's not a religion. Where is the testable evidence in religion? There is none. It's not science.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: bastion

Come to think of it I can't remember the story ever mentioning Noah doing the same with plants, which obviously would have all been wiped out in the alleged flood.

You may be wrong in what you believe. Land plant life may have been uprooted to the point that the waters were covered with vegetation which could mean that there were seeds of plants as well as the plants themselves that survived a period of about 130 days. This has been tested and confirmed several times over.

According to biblical accounts the waters did not cover the entire earth for one lunar year.

Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

This tells that some of the land was covered by water 150 days but that common sense also tells you that not all of the land was covered 150 days. Also consider that perhaps seeds were gathered by Noah and planted just as the grape vine was planted after the flood. Yes it is possible that trees as well as plant life did survive the flood.

The Bible is filled with claims but claims aren't facts. What area was covered with water for 150 days? What testable evidence proves it? What contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proves that Noah actually lived and what testable evidence proves that the ark actually existed? Claiming that Hogwarts exists is not the same as proving that Hogwarts exists. Arguing about how much a Zork weighs is silly until you can prove that Zorks actually existed. Where is the actual proof that the Biblical flood happened?

a reply to: Seede

Chinese whispers is a game where people sit in a circle whisper a phrase to the person on their left then compare the original and end product versions to show how quickly word of mouth distorts things - it has nothing to do with Chinese people.

Nearly 100% of seeds spoil after being submerged in water for two to four days. There'd only be a handful of plants and all animal life would have died out in the resulting famine if there was a global 150 day flood.

The force required to raise the sea bed over 8000m would break the Earth in two - and it no longer exist. Tectonic plates and rock formations allow us to determine past heights and locations of mountains etc to a high degree of accuracy.

Using ventilation shafts would mean the boat isn't water tight. Wood cannot withstand the tensile stresses and strains of a boat big enough - there's a reason ships over a certain size have to be made of metal.

Biblical science is not a science as it starts with the assumption the bible is true - which is the complete opposite of the scientific method.

a reply to: Tangerine

Science relies on testable evidence. Religion is the performance of ritual on behalf of a supernatural deity/deities not based on testable evidence. Where is the supernatural deity in science? There is none. It's not a religion. Where is the testable evidence in religion? There is none. It's not science.

Well hello there Tangerine. Thought I had lost you but here you are again. I hope you got my last post and am still waiting for your great intellectual response from the other thread. I'm glad that you brought up that testable thing again. So you still insist that 65 million years ago was there 65 million years ago. And that it is testable? Right? Then it will not be a problem for you to show me how testable it is. Still waiting ----

a reply to: Tangerine

Text The Bible is filled with claims but claims aren't facts. What area was covered with water for 150 days? What testable evidence proves it? What contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proves that Noah actually lived and what testable evidence proves that the ark actually existed? Claiming that Hogwarts exists is not the same as proving that Hogwarts exists. Arguing about how much a Zork weighs is silly until you can prove that Zorks actually existed. Where is the actual proof that the Biblical flood happened?

What contemporaneous documentation exists (ie historical evidence) that proves dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago? Facts? Claims are not facts till proven. Right? Then prove your secular science and covert these stupid people that
they are subhuman idiots which your ilk parrots.

I do not intend to prove religion simply because religion is not science but is Theology. All of the bible is not theology nor religion. A great share of the bible has been proven and accepted as documented facts. That portion you will have to study for yourself. The Hebrew literature tells us that Noah did live and that there was a flood in his day. This literature also tells us that he and his family did build a great ark. That is theology. You know. Something like 65 million years ago was really there 65 million years ago. Just as you yourself has stated, arguing about millions of years is silly unless you can prove millions of years. That was from you yourself.

No, the bible does not mention Zorks or Hogwarts and no Noah cannot be proven any more than God can be proven. That is a matter of theology. Just as your religion of secular science consists of theology so does the bible consist of theology. Your entire science depends on trying to sell millions of years as fact. Silly isn't it?