Noah and the great flood, unanswered questions

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Hey Wild, salutations.

You need to click the link and then read my short thread to get the full pic.

Vogon

If I'm off-topic here I'm sure the Mods will handle it. I don't see that you've pointed that out or that I'm even out of context in trying to answer your Q.

OK, well to answer your Q.
Your pic does not look like the Ark, or the animals loaded on to it.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Lol. You don't understand how male and female can reproduce? Well, there isn't really anything i can help you with there without linking something pornographic which would violate the T of C and be a little embarassing at the same time.

Well, so, we're going with rude again?

Obviously vogon was referring to the "feminine-type" male and the "masculine-type" male. But, well, if you can't understand that (like I didn't understand what Young-earth creations were), um....

You're gonna condemn and LAUGH OUT LOUD at vogon?

Rude.
And non-informative.

(SORRY, MASQUA...MY BAD)
Back on topic:
The point is in this thread that the Creationists can't actually prove what they proclaim as truth except to refer to the Bible, which is NOT a primary source for information.

at least randyvs has a scientific offering for the possibility of a "global" event.

There was nothing rude in that, i was clowning around but obviously you don't understand what humor is...now that was sarcasm.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


See? That's what "you people" don't get! When you do 'lols' or the stupid laughy-face emoticon, and the roll your eyes, it is NOT humorous. It is cowardice, because you feel safer laughing at others than explaining yourself. You turn to mocking rather than discussion.

Spend some time reading through my history of posts...I have a fine sense of humor...but you don't care about that, you only care about looking "correct," and when you don't, you get defensive and mocking as soon as you are called out.

This thread isn't going off topic again, is it?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

....
Lol. You don't understand how male and female can reproduce? Well, there isn't really anything i can help you with there without linking something pornographic ......

So once again this is an excuse for you being condescending?

Most people of god would consider your words to be ........... ah, never mind, you cant even answer two simple questions with out displaying your hatred towards your fellow man.

One day you too shall be judged

**********************
so, if you can......back to the original point.

You believe the flood did happen.
I believe you say it was global (sorry, you have clouded the thread with your hate, so I'm not quite sure)

How many animals were on the Ark?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

The stories may have started off as oral traditions, but the ancients stories came from events that they witnessed with their own eyes and wanted to pass down through the generations which they also painted inside caves depicting the events.

The ancient stories STARTED OFF as oral traditions....ever play the "telephone" or "grapevine" game?...and their stories were hearsay passed along from generation to generation, and eventually written down in the words that the "moderns" heard them.....

Ever even watch Mad Max where he finds the kids in the canyon? He's Cap'n Walker....the Vegas dancer becomes Mrs. Walker.....

my turn:

reply to post by masqua


Sorry, Masqua.
*embarrassed*

reply to post by vogon42

OK, well to answer your Q.
Your pic does not look like the Ark, or the animals loaded on to it.

Well now that we are in agreement of something. You do see the possibility of a global flood right ? Good, that's what my post was about.

reply to post by randyvs



Ah, ok....I get it now.

So you say the flood was global, OK.

Now.....
Any thoughts on how many animals were on the Ark?
(so far it has varied from 20, to 60,000)

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

It is cowardice, because you feel safer laughing at others than explaining yourself. You turn to mocking rather than discussion.

Careful with that word ... I used it once concerning him and not answering single one of my questions without using copy&paste texts from propaganda websites, and the thread got locked,

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

....
Lol. You don't understand how male and female can reproduce? Well, there isn't really anything i can help you with there without linking something pornographic ......

So once again this is an excuse for you being condescending?

Most people of god would consider your words to be ........... ah, never mind, you cant even answer two simple questions with out displaying your hatred towards your fellow man.

One day you too shall be judged

**********************
so, if you can......back to the original point.

You believe the flood did happen.
I believe you say it was global (sorry, you have clouded the thread with your hate, so I'm not quite sure)

How many animals were on the Ark?

edit on 1-1-2012 by vogon42 because: (no reason given)

Ok something is going wrong because youre accusing me of hate against other people when i never said anything hateful. It's time to end this discussion because people are getting offended over something said in jest. If i offended you i'm sorry but i am not going to continue this discussion because people get mad over humor.

Originally posted by masqua
This thread isn't going off topic again, is it?

I tried to stay on topic as much as I could.

So far, my premise, according to Qur'an, is: The Flood was a local event, where Noah saved his family, a few other people who believed him, and two of each of the livestock he probably had.

The flood, still according to Qur'an, seems to have been a tsunami type catastrophe, which came VERY FAST, thus there was little chance for anyone outside the ark from Noah's people to survive.

The Qur'an even records the conversation of Noah, with one of his sons, who did not want to go with him, saying that he would seek shelter on one of the mountains, but the waves were too fast, and before he could reach it, he was drowned.

Pretty plausible, scientifically - contrary to the biblical "global" version of it with ca. 60.000 animals and Kangaroos and Lamas having to swim from Australia and South America respectively to Mesopotamia to reach Noah's ark.

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by randyvs

 

Ah, ok....I get it now.

So you say the flood was global, OK.

Now.....
Any thoughts on how many animals were on the Ark?
(so far it has varied from 20, to 60,000)

Well of course you do.
You can bet on one thing. Not one of those varibles is prolly correct. I don't know how many stars fill the universe tho either. Doesn't mean there isn't a universe or even that the word for uni verse describes how God spoke the uni-verse into existence.

OK, well to all....
apparently lonewolf19792000 believes the flood was global, but will not be sticking around to let us know how many animals he believes were on the Ark.

Still curious to know others input, thanks for your time.

Originally posted by randyvs
....
You can bet on one thing. Not one of those varibles is prolly correct.

Thanks for the input!
Still very interesting to hear so many answers, so many beliefs. (Personally I do believe 40, meaning 20 different species, sounds a bit short)

reply to post by vogon42


Some vary shabby tactics employed in this thread. And I'm willing to take an off topic to say so.

IMO

of course.

third and final note

PLEASE stay on topic or this thread will be closed

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is condemnation before investigation."

--Edmund Spencer

Nice one!

And it states very clearly why some people refuse to look at evidence and information presented to them, before their very eyes, even if its politely dropped in their laps, because they have ALREADY CONDEMNED those offering the information in advance...and so they say, "I don't need to read it, hear it, watch it...and why are you trying to 'destroy my faith!?' ".

Read it again: 'cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance.
Cannot fail = succeeds every time. SUCCEEDS EVERY TIME to keep man in EVERLASTING IGNORANCE.

Yes it does. And what you may not know about me is that I've been a believer for about a decade now. For the majority of my life I HAD NOT been one. So every time I hear or read a complaint like: "But that's from a Christian source!", I think of good ol Mr. Spencer's quote. So sad.

Originally posted by masqua
third and final note

PLEASE stay on topic or this thread will be closed

What happened. Who was off topic? (I can't see any post that would qualify as such)

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What what do you want to do with the knowledge that many, many years ago when the KJB was translated into English there was no terminology "species" available to be used?

Origin of SPECIES

Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look — more at spy
First Known Use: 14th century

www.merriam-webster.com...
That's over 300 years before the KJV Bible was translated from the Latin.

So, sorry, you are incorrect.

Thank you for teaching me this, but the link you listed also says that "kind" is a synonym for "species". Christians don't deny that variations occur within species of animals. I've seen albino cave fish in Mammoth cave Kentucky. They are white and completely blind after generations of confined breeding in caves hundreds of feet underground.

They are still fish I believe.