Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
Seems to me the stories in the bible are about one group of humans. Guess it makes them feel special but that doesn't mean the other humans were beneath them.

This whole rh- thing with you seems to stem from the same idea.

They were made to tend the Garden.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation
So the fiery sword let them get back in?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Just forgiven. Like you can be.

But he couldn't forgive all the innocent people that died in the deluge.

They had an opportunity to repent and chose rebellion.
Except for the nephilim which has no place in heaven and never offered salvation.
They are bound in sheol from the flood awaiting judgment.
The Bible refers to them as the congregation of death.
This is the council of9.
The great white brotherhood.
The enlightened ones in Shambala.
The tares among the wheat awaiting harvest.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
So the fiery sword let them get back in?

No
Never

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

What?
Where did Noah molest a grandchild?
You made that up

They all would have been humping anyone they could, to try and repopulte the world, with Noah being 500 and have have sex with his grandchildren.

Also....

these criticisms apply to the eight humans aboard the boat as well (Genesis 6:18 and 7:7). Creationists still cling to obsolete stereotypes concerning the "three distinct families of man" descended from Noah's three sons (Custance, p. 204) and even talk candidly of the Afro-Asian "Hamites" being "possessed of a racial character concerned mainly with mundane matters" and subject to displacement by "the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites" (Henry Morris, 1977, p. 130).

In reality the ethnic complexity found throughout the world cannot be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that time. The human genetic pool was reduced to five individuals—Mr. and Mrs. Noah and their daughters-in-law (the three sons don't count because they only carry combinations of the genes present in Mr. and Mrs. Noah, unless creationists are willing to admit to beneficial gene mutations). And even if, by some freak coincidence, the five people never had a variant in common, there would still be far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity. Nearly a third of human genes are polymorphic (Bodner and Cavalli-Sforzi, p. 589), and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with thirty varieties (p. 589), would require substantially more people than Genesis makes available.

If creationists allowed beneficial mutations to produce the thirty different antigens of the A and B series in the HLA region, it would still not solve their problem. Individuals are only heterozygous at a fairly low percentage of loci (5 to 20 percent), while the population could be polymorphic at nearly half the loci. It's questionable how viable an individual would be with a high percentage of heterozygosity (Dobzhansky,

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
They had an opportunity to repent and chose rebellion.

Really, the people living on the other side of the world didn't have decent folk?

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
No
Never

So how would they tend to the Garden?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
Seems to me the stories in the bible are about one group of humans. Guess it makes them feel special but that doesn't mean the other humans were beneath them.

This whole rh- thing with you seems to stem from the same idea.

DNA haplitypes show there is zero occurrence of rh- in Neanderthal.
The out of Africa view of anthropology is completely debunked today

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
DNA haplitypes show there is zero occurrence of rh- in Neanderthal.
The out of Africa view of anthropology is completely debunked today

Who says they had to be neanderthals?

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: FarmerSimulation
Seems to me the stories in the bible are about one group of humans. Guess it makes them feel special but that doesn't mean the other humans were beneath them.

This whole rh- thing with you seems to stem from the same idea.

DNA haplitypes show there is zero occurrence of rh- in Neanderthal.
The out of Africa view of anthropology is completely debunked today

Again, where's your evidence for this other than creationist websites..

en.wikipedia.org...

In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans or the "Out of Africa" theory (OOA)[a] is the most widely accepted [1][2][3] model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens). It follows the early expansions of hominins out of Africa, accomplished by Homo erectus and then Homo neanderthalensis.

www.iflscience.com...

Then, in the late 1980s, genetic research into mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) showed that the lineage of all modern human females came from an African origin around 200,000 years ago. This not only added greater weight to the Out of Africa hypothesis, but it also suggested that humans emerged as an entirely new species that had not interbred with other archaic humans, such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. These early humans then left Africa around 60,000 years ago and replaced the other archaic species.

Wait It never occurred to me that Adam came after the Neanderthals - Or was the Neanderthals a product of Adams inbreeding ?

Ground breaking kinda like the chicken and the egg !!!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Again, lots of "I believe this" or "I believe that". Where's your evidence for this other than "I've read so and so...." thats just assumptions!

Pretty much all of the canaanite, hindu, Roman, Greek, hebrew myths that tell alot of the same things.
The babylon Talmud shares a lot in making all the connections.
Eustace Mullins covers that in the Curse of canaan.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Pretty much all of the canaanite, hindu, Roman, Greek, hebrew myths that tell alot of the same things.

Did it ever occur to you that they are not the same things but just similar stories because the human experience is similar regardless of location?

I have no idea of what you are attempting to imply

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
They had an opportunity to repent and chose rebellion.

Really, the people living on the other side of the world didn't have decent folk?

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
Wait It never occurred to me that Adam came after the Neanderthals - Or was the Neanderthals a product of Adams inbreeding ?

Ground breaking kinda like the chicken and the egg !!!!

Yes.
The Neanderthals were present as were the sons of God, the elohim that inhabited Atlantis and Lemuria.

No inbreeding needed.
Adam=A- blood.
Eve= B- blood.
Able, Seth =AB-
Samael=O+
Cain/lilith= O- for Cain, speculative for lilith being O-/+.

There is a previous poster from 10+ years ago on ATS that went so unbelievably deep on this it will amaze you.
He was open source with his work till covid hit.
Now you have to join his Facebook to view his stuff, which is vast and detailed i.e. "The Garden of Truth and Lies".

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
Wait It never occurred to me that Adam came after the Neanderthals - Or was the Neanderthals a product of Adams inbreeding ?

Ground breaking kinda like the chicken and the egg !!!!

Yes.
The Neanderthals were present as were the sons of God, the elohim that inhabited Atlantis and Lemuria.

I'll just sit back and speak in tongues it makes more sense then this thread .

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
I have no idea of what you are attempting to imply

Well OP always brings up Peruvian, Hawaiian and Chinese flood stories with survivors who tell the tale.

Seems to be these people were also worthy but for some reason you seem to think earth was repopulated by humans who could only be the children of Noah. That their wive's genetics are the only ones that sprouted differences in the genetic makeup of the world's present population.

You even state that one had better genes and these, if I get what you are saying, are the source for modern civilization. Horses, chariots and stuff like that.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
I'll just sit back and speak in tongues it makes more sense then this thread .

No, the secret is to listen in tongues. It tickles a little but it is worth it.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
Wait It never occurred to me that Adam came after the Neanderthals - Or was the Neanderthals a product of Adams inbreeding ?

Ground breaking kinda like the chicken and the egg !!!!

Yes.
The Neanderthals were present as were the sons of God, the elohim that inhabited Atlantis and Lemuria.

I'll just sit back and speak in tongues it makes more sense then this thread .

Just remember the rules.
If you speak in tongues it is required to have an interpreter present to identify if its demonic Babel or not

I never said that at all.
Follow closer

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
I have no idea of what you are attempting to imply

Well OP always brings up Peruvian, Hawaiian and Chinese flood stories with survivors who tell the tale.

Seems to be these people were also worthy but for some reason you seem to think earth was repopulated by humans who could only be the children of Noah. That their wive's genetics are the only ones that sprouted differences in the genetic makeup of the world's present population.

You even state that one had better genes and these, if I get what you are saying, are the source for modern civilization. Horses, chariots and stuff like that.

I provided proofs based upon modern study of DNA haplitypes and hapligroups.
You must not have looked at it