Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
What about every other life, besides those god wanted to get rid of, why would he kill all those humans, land animals and plants?

I'm out the blind ignorance is making my head hurt .

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
This contradicts your theory about a special group that introduced horses. They would have been all traveling in a pack and the domesticated animals would have been there from the start.

Looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Woot!
More Robert Sepehr.
Let me find it.


Only one group of people tamed and domesticated livestock and horses for agriculture that created just about every people everywhere the world over.
And that would be the Aryan or IndoEuropean people.
The out of Africa theory is ridiculous with what we now know about DNA hapligroups and anthropology

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
I'm not watching any of the videos you post.

I'm going off of what you have said.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
What about every other life, besides those god wanted to get rid of, why would he kill all those humans, land animals and plants?

The world became polluted with inter species inbreeding of nephilim.
The whole world had become corrupted by them.
They were flocking everything.
And they were murderous cannibals.
That was the reason for the flood.
Nothing else.
Life preserved, not destroyed.
Your reasoning is backwards because the world taught you God was a murderous tyrant.
That was yahweh/zeus/moloch

Lol.
I am not the source.
I am giving you anthropological evidence from an anthropologist in a discussion about anthropology.
You just want to talk about me.
I am out then.
You keep gossiping.
I am not interested in talking about people.
I want to talk about events and higher ideals.
Gossiping about people bore me to tears

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
I'm not watching any of the videos you post.

I'm going off of what you have said.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
My reasoning is simple, if god is all seeing, all knowing and omnipotent he could have just killed those that were polluted.

You are the one who asked: "But what about marine life. Why would you kill it?"

Why indeed, but then one can ask, why kill the land animals, humans and plants who were not polluted?

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
And I'm pointing out that you presented two contradictory ideas.

Animals have to learn to fear us, implying Noah and his family took care of them, but then all his sons would have known about horses and would have raised their own, so that other theory about one group introducing horses to another falls flat.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
My reasoning is simple, if god is all seeing, all knowing and omnipotent he could have just killed those that were polluted.

You are the one who asked: "But what about marine life. Why would you kill it?"

Why indeed, but then one can ask, why kill the land animals, humans and plants who were not polluted?

Why are you arguing with me about that then?
Neither me or the Bible say that all marine life was killed.
What are you talking about?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
And I'm pointing out that you presented two contradictory ideas.

Animals have to learn to fear us, implying Noah and his family took care of them, but then all his sons would have known about horses and would have raised their own, so that other theory about one group introducing horses to another falls flat.

That is who domesticated the horse and livestock.
Hello, is this mic on?
Can you hear me?
Hello??

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
Obviously you can't grasp what is being said.

If the marine life was spared, why didn't god spare the unpolluted land animals?

It is a simple and logical question.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
That is who domesticated the horse and livestock.
Hello, is this mic on?
Can you hear me?
Hello??

But you said animals from the ark would stay close to the family, which would include horses, implying they would be domesticated or easy to domesticate. The three sons would have had horses from the start.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
My reasoning is simple, if god is all seeing, all knowing and omnipotent he could have just killed those that were polluted.

You are the one who asked: "But what about marine life. Why would you kill it?"

Why indeed, but then one can ask, why kill the land animals, humans and plants who were not polluted?

There is a description and a transcript for all his videos.
I cannot figure out how to copy and paste it or I would do that for you

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
That is who domesticated the horse and livestock.
Hello, is this mic on?
Can you hear me?
Hello??

But you said animals from the ark would stay close to the family, which would include horses, implying they would be domesticated or easy to domesticate. The three sons would have had horses from the start.

I said nothing of the sort

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
Obviously you can't grasp what is being said.

If the marine life was spared, why didn't god spare the unpolluted land animals?

It is a simple and logical question.

You are drawing false conclusions.
That makes it simply a personal problem for you and you alone to work out.
I guess this discussion isn't working out to well for you.
I suggest meditating instead of impulsively posting ridiculous things claiming stuff nobody said

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
There is a description and a transcript for all his videos.
I cannot figure out how to copy and paste it or I would do that for you

You don't have to, it has nothing to do with whether this person makes a good argument or not. Either the animals stayed with Noah and his family after the flood, allowing them to domesticate some from the start or they left and faced certain starvation.

It seems the former is the only possible scenario if they were to survive but then it seems logical that those humans, and all their offspring, would have known about and likely bred horses.

You can't have it both ways.

I said nothing of the sort

Allow me:

They would have to learn to be afraid of humans.
That came later.
You really do not know much about animalinteractions with humans do you?
They have to learn to fear us.
Not all but most.
Animals speak and communicate mostly in emotions.
They can sense our emotions.

So if there were 6 horses on the ark and they were not afraid of the humans, wouldn't they have domesticated them? Wouldn't the surviving humans all know and probably breed horses right after the flood?

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
I'm drawing conclusions that you disagree with. That isn't my problem.

This discussion is working great for me. All the holes in the story brought up by others is interesting food for thought.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
There is a description and a transcript for all his videos.
I cannot figure out how to copy and paste it or I would do that for you

You don't have to, it has nothing to do with whether this person makes a good argument or not. Either the animals stayed with Noah and his family after the flood, allowing them to domesticate some from the start or they left and faced certain starvation.

If it is the former then it seems logical that those humans, and all their offspring, would have known about and likely bred horses.

You can't have it both ways.

I said nothing of the sort

Allow me:

They would have to learn to be afraid of humans.
That came later.
You really do not know much about animalinteractions with humans do you?
They have to learn to fear us.
Not all but most.
Animals speak and communicate mostly in emotions.
They can sense our emotions.

So if there were 6 horses on the ark and they were not afraid of the humans, wouldn't they have domesticated them? Wouldn't the surviving humans all know and probably breed horses right after the flood?

Probably.
The rh- people that got off the boat.
They would know how to domesticated animals later also after the dispersion and I terminating.

I guess you have not realized I do not believe only rh- survived the flood and acquired these skillets and passed on the domestication of animals for agriculture.
What about Naamah?
And a wives or 2 from the brothers.
When did they do.esticate the animals for agriculture, before or later after the flood?
It seems to me the plantlife was flourishing pre-load so it probably was not needed.
Maybe it was.
What are your thoughts on that?
If I were to guess the relationship and trust the brothers gained during the flood and caring for the animals helped in the domestication and post flood it became much more difficult to grow needing also a greater need to travel to better conditions. Haven't you ever wondered why a rh- negative mother can have blood that completely rejects a baby they are carrying that is rh+?
And how come Neanderthal has zero haplitypes that have any rh- at all anywhere?
What a mystery here.
Help me fill in these gaps.
I only have anthropology and anthropologists to go by for answers.
It baffles me.
And you baffle me more with all the logical fallacy stuff that can only be used to create greater confusion.

Do you think all life died that was not on the boat?
I do not think so.
Certainly not all marine life as you keep implying.
What about all animals?
I am not so sure.
I know this goes against some of my ideological allies here.
What about human?
Again I am not so sure.
Was it flooded globally all at once?
Again I am not so sure. I hold all of this open and as you can tell I am not 100% dogmatic in my belief and responses.
I am open for discussion
So here is the biggy.
What about Neanderthal and cromagnon?
We're there people and animals that survived the flood.
Anthropology and the study of hapligroups and haplitypes seems to imply this is so.
Or maybe from Naamah or a wive or 2.
I am open to discuss it all.
But anthropology is a real science and DNA hapligroups are saying things that cannot be denied based upon DNA

What about human?

a reply to: cooperton

So now you know the growth rate of every species on that boat. He would need a boat about 500 miles long and 50 decks deep to accommodate two of every species. Are you nuts? I guess that's a no-brainer.

What about all the species in the sea, including two of these:

While regarded as one of the largest and most powerful predators to have ever lived, megalodon is only known from fragmentary remains, and its appearance and maximum size are uncertain. Scientists differ on whether it would have more closely resembled a stockier version of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) or the sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus). The most recent estimate with the least error range suggests a maximum length estimate up to 20.3 meters (67 ft), although the modal lengths are estimated at 10.5 meters (34 ft). Extrapolation from a vertebral centra with dimensions based on the great white shark suggests that a megalodon about 16 meters (52 ft) long weighs up to 48 metric tons (53 short tons), 17 meters (56 ft) long weighs up to 59 metric tons (65 short tons), and 20.3 meters (67 ft) long (the maximum length) weighs up to 103 metric tons (114 short tons). Extrapolating from a vertebral column and reconstructing a 3D model with dimensions based on all extant lamnid sharks suggests that a 16-meter-long (52 ft) individual may have been much larger than previous estimates, reaching an excess of 61.5 metric tons (67.8 short tons) in body mass; an individual of this size would have needed to consume 98,175 kcal per day. Their teeth were thick and robust, built for grabbing prey and breaking bone, and their large jaws could exert a bite force of up to 108,500 to 182,200 newtons (24,390 to 40,960 lbf).

Noah must have built one hell of an aquarium. You really need to stay off the hard stuff, Coop.

a reply to: daskakik

Where did I say animals off the boat would have to stay with the humans?
I said nothing of the sort.
And your refutation of my claim proved it.
You even quoted me saying something other that what you claimed and implied.
You just want to gossip.
You just want to make me the topic

I will concede this.
But I never said that all the animals stayed. You implied this because they needed to so they would be fed.
I will admit that what I know about livestock and animals is they fear us but want to trust us.
The brothers and Noah most certainly had earned the animals trust.
An animal injured will actually seek human assistance when injured or another animal needs help.
YouTube is full of that stuff.
Wild or not. Dangerous or not.
Not all. They pretty much fear man, as they should.
I have learned that the human voice vibrates in a way that animals react to differently than other animals.
They really learn to love us if you give them the opportunity to.
Our voice does something very unique to them.
I have a lot of animals.
Some exotic.
I love my animals and they know I do.
My turkeys follow me everywhere. Always showing out.
My dogs will bite your head off if you come around with ill intent.
But I raise my voice in a command and they whimper and tell me they are sorry and want my love.
They all speak in emotions. They sense emotions. Some more than others.
Like pigs.
Eating is highly emotional for pigs.
Don't trust them ever when it comes to eating. Ever