Students Surprised to Find Noah's Ark Feasible

a reply to: peter vlar

Where in your links did they demonstrate how they got the date of 5-10,000 years for the blonde hair blue eyes genes?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

A whole world ago. What does that even mean? Post the verse. What does the Bible say as to when it occurred?

I say a whole world ago because as you well know the Bible
isn't always concerned with dates. But it must of been a
hell of long time ago to preclude the beginnings of this
world we know today. By world, I mean the civilization
and society that we can see obviously comes with mankind
and effects each individual human beings experience during
his short inexperienced stay on this planet. Not the planet
it self, but the world man creates and God can put an end to
any time he so chooses.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar

What are you talking about? I never said that dinosaurs didn't exist. I merely said that they were basically just very large species of animals that were given the name dinosaurs to describe them.

I didn't say that you claim they didn't exist. But you're claims are still come off a tad suspect. Triceratops is just a larger rhino like creature? Pterodactyl is just a really large bird...? Rhinos are mammals not lizards which Triceratops are. Pterodactyls, pteranodon etc... Aren't dinosaurs, they are flying reptiles and yes there is a distinction. Dinosaurs were predominantly warm blooded based on what is currently known whereas reptiles like the Pterosaurs were all cold blooded. Whether it was intentional or not i can't say, but based on your syntax, the implication came off as though you were trying to say that paleontology has it all wrong and just created an arbitrary nomenclature to describe large animals and that these giant animals are just larger versions of modern animals we all know. If I got you completely wrong, then I do apologize. Its not my intent to misrepresent your ideas and create a strawman platform to attack you from so I sincerely apologize if that is the unintended outcome.

With that said, I stand fully behind my comments about the dubiousness of the 'Paleochronology Group'. What they are doing is running a propaganda campaign against science. They are in no way practicing science though. The methodology right down to the false representations of publication are from start to finish pseudoscience and honestly, that's making other practitioners of pseudoscience look horrid by being lumped in together. Even nut jobs like Brian Foerster and his fools gold version of science relating to the Paracas elongated skulls at least allow for review of their work.

Also, in reference to your question on methodology regarding the dating of the mutations associated with light hair and eyes, I linked a papers forgetting that without a subscription you're stuck with the abstract and unfortunately, I can't give out my log in info for any journals or professional organizations I still subscribe to. However, in good faith I will do some further looking and see if I can locate an unrestricted link to a full paper for you. I don't expect you to take the word of some random stranger in the Internet, nor should you do so.

It should be noted that we've only found Neanderthals DNA in males. In other words, if we fought with them, then they won.
There's also no evidence of mutual consent, since we would find Neanderthal DNA in both males and females. There are so many flaws with evolution, once you start examining it in details, the least of which is how so many languages(over 6000) developed and ancient people communicated. When you have two people that don't speak the same language(and have no common language), then how can they even marry and live in the same household? And if people that can speak can't co-exist, then how could Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals have hoped to do the same?

The only way that all of this makes sense(and everything in this extremely complicated yet orderly universe), or "Occam's Razor" is that we're a product of genetic engineering(in other words, the Neanderthal DNA came from parts of the DNA of a single Neanderthal male, and got fused with the Cro-Magnons'), and a part of a simulation, and all simulations are part of a single thought. We assume that being able to feel makes us real, yet does that make us any real than the people in our dreams? Who is to say that our definition of real is universal, that we are more real than the people in our dreams? And how can we be sure that the people in our dreams are not "real," when we don't exist in their frame of reference?

And if we are all the products of thoughts(that perceive time differently), then nothing is impossible, and everything that seems "miraculous," including our feelings, is just a thought.

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

There were MILLIONS more than 70,000 animals that would have been on that boat. And they would have needed food and fresh water enough for eight months. And the meat eaters would have needed other animals to eat and those living critters would have had to been taken along as a food source. And then there is food and fresh water for 8 people for that length of time that would have been stored as well.

Ice corp samples prove there was no world wide flood in the past 100,000 years. Coral reefs would have all been killed off and yet we have coral reefs 100,000 years old. We have trees in the desert S.W. USA that are 70,000 years old. Human DNA proves that we didn't all come from 3 pair of related reproducing humans 6,000 years ago.

The flood didn't happen and the boat couldn't have held the animals and the food and the water.

a reply to: np6888

I don't think they met, married and settled down...
I suspect the woman were taken by force.
Also we only find Neanderthal DNA in males? care to give us links for that?.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Also we only find Neanderthal DNA in males? care to give us links for that?.

My daughter did that 23&Me DNA testing. She came up with 2.4% Neanderthal DNA. So if anyone says that Neanderthal DNA can only be found in males, I know that's absolutely wrong.

Another note from Bronze Age Warrior, isn't it interesting that we can find evidence so easily when the date is after the Flood?
Before the flood, all you can find is fossilized tools, "buried" pottery(and I'm not even sure that the date is accurate), and very rare fossilized humans.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I got it backwards. It can only be found in our females.

genetics.thetech.org...

a reply to: np6888

What flood? the global one never happened.

a reply to: np6888

Wrong again.

originally posted by: np6888
It should be noted that we've only found Neanderthals DNA in males. In other words, if we fought with them, then they won.

It should also be noted thaqt you are completely incorrect. I find it interesting that you require every bit of minutiae to be associated with a citation for evidence to be considered with any validity by you yet you have continuously lumped claim after claim into this thread without supporting it and when you do, the citations are from exceptionally questionable sources that wouldn't make muster for a 7th grade book report.

There's also no evidence of mutual consent, since we would find Neanderthal DNA in both males and females.

well thank goodness that we find Neanderthal DNA in both genders of HSS then right?

There are so many flaws with evolution, once you start examining it in details, the least of which is how so many languages(over 6000) developed and ancient people communicated. When you have two people that don't speak the same language(and have no common language), then how can they even marry and live in the same household?

Is your estimate of 6000 languages for present day or for the upper paleolithic?

And if people that can speak can't co-exist, then how could Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals have hoped to do the same?

Not only is there evidence of mutual consent per your above statements, there is evidence of cohabitation in the Levant between HS and HN of the same sites at the same time. There is evidence of exchange of cultural ideas in the form of Lithic technology being shared, the introduction of similar grave goods and shared burial areas. These are not the activities of 2 disparate peoples who hated. disliked or hunted each other

The only way that all of this makes sense(and everything in this extremely complicated yet orderly universe), or "Occam's Razor" is that we're a product of genetic engineering(in other words, the Neanderthal DNA came from parts of the DNA of a single Neanderthal male, and got fused with the Cro-Magnons'), and a part of a simulation, and all simulations are part of a single thought.

Are you being serious? the simplest explanation is that we are the product of genetic engineering and some sort of simulation?!?!

Please explain to me how your version of events relies on fewer assumptions than evolution which is supported by an extensive fossil record that continues to grow and a rather copious genetic legacy that continues to decipher our past and present genetics with increasingly accurate and detailed coverage.

We assume that being able to feel makes us real, yet does that make us any real than the people in our dreams? Who is to say that our definition of real is universal, that we are more real than the people in our dreams? And how can we be sure that the people in our dreams are not "real," when we don't exist in their frame of reference?

Your second word is assume... there's nothing for Occams Razor to shave here.

And if we are all the products of thoughts(that perceive time differently), then nothing is impossible, and everything that seems "miraculous," including our feelings, is just a thought.

More if's what do you have that is concrete, supported and testable and not an assumption?

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: FlyersFan

I got it backwards. It can only be found in our females.

genetics.thetech.org...

Incorrect. Here is a 45 KYA HSS genome demonstrating a higher percentage of HN DNA than modern HSS

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: np6888
Another note from Bronze Age Warrior, isn't it interesting that we can find evidence so easily when the date is after the Flood?

Which flood is that? Certainly not a global one. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for many catastrophic floods over the course of Earth's history. Just not one singular, global event as you seem to be intimating.

Before the flood, all you can find is fossilized tools, "buried" pottery(and I'm not even sure that the date is accurate), and very rare fossilized humans.

Why don't you give us a date and location for this flood so it can be properly discussed because I'm quite confident in the geological record and the archaeological record as well as the fossil record but I can't address random blanket statements levied in lieu of factual claims. If you are really interested in an actual discussion then present some facts, support your statements so they may be appropriately addressed.

Anyway, here's a picture of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat

www.sunnyskyz.com...

Note that if you use the long cubit, the dimensions fit perfectly. The woods dissolved, leaving an outline, which is what you'd expect.

a reply to: np6888

Do you completely ignore people evidence shown to you?.

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't know the accurate date, but it's between 4000-6000 years ago.

a reply to: np6888

www.snopes.com...

Of course anything involving Ron Wyatt should be immediately debunked anyways.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't know the accurate date, but it's between 4000-6000 years ago.

Where have I heard that date before?

So where's the evidence? The source?

a reply to: boymonkey74

I'm trying to think this over. However, if we're going to take testimonies from random people, then we need more and verify that they are actually Neanderthal DNA.