Groups of breeders from each syngameon into isolated and disparate environments is what I was taking about, I thought obviously, many different "species" of cats can cross-breed, they are of the same syngameon, how dense can you get Skin?
How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
Eight people, whose offspring track the people groups of the ancient world.
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
As I mentioned earlier its a rehash of the legend of Gilamish ( I may be spelling Gilamish wrong)
I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh but I really don't see that much similarity in the stories besides there being a flood.....
A poor rendering of the true story.
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
Well, that's where the story started. It might have been embellished upon in true Christian tradition.
But lots of cultures around the world have flood myths...that indicates that there probably was some huge flood a long time ago.....
There's almost nothing similar in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark besides there being a flood....
Noah's account reads like a ship's log.
Rather than resort to childish insults, accusing other of density, perhaps it would serve your purpose better to be be more clear and concise, providing, at least at some point, clarifications for your psueduoscientific drivel. Until you co-opted the term, quite ineffectively and unrealistically I might add, the only other mention of "syngameon" that I've recalled was with regard to infertile species like mules. A quick look at a dictionary reveals that the definition is more broad, but when using non-standard technical terms to mixed audiences, the proper etiquette for the writer is to provide a definition as well as a reason why the term is relevant.
So, to answer your question, I can be quite dense. Particularly in the company of the undereducated and the ignorant.
Having made my point, I challenge you now to provide the scientific data to support your wild and fantastical claims. If you are unable to do so, then obviously they aren't worth the pixels they're written in.
The "Noah account" reads like a stolen and plagiarized work of mythology. In places, the Noachian flood myth is a word-for-word copy of the much earlier Sumerian myth of Ziasudra/Utnapishtim retold in tablet 10 of Gilgamesh.
In other words, the Noachian flood story is a proven literary fraud. One that, interestingly enough, many deluded people take as a literal truth. Perhaps, one day, there will be those that accept a Tom Clancy novel to be the literal truth of a new Savior named Jack Ryan.
Last edited:
Tee hee.
Darwinism is such a whopper, I can't believe people like you are that gullible Skin.
Darwinism is such a whopper, I can't believe people like you are that gullible Skin.
Last edited by a moderator:
Then clearly you haven't read it.
The original of a future "bastardization", (the Noah version). You simply cannot argue it.
Wrong. Try reading it again, this time with your eyes open.
Point out any specific grievances and we can take a look at them.
All of the supposed similarities are real vague stupid things not actual similarities...like Noah was a special man and Gilgamesh was also a special man...woah what a similarity...
Let's examine the "vagueness" of your claim then: The Noachian flood myth can be dismissed as a myth with no factual basis based solely on its comparison and contrast to the older stories and myths about floods that existed long before among the people residing in the flood plain of the Tigris and Euphrates.
The Gilgamesh epic is demonstrably the literary progenitor of the Noachian myth. I'll include passages from both Genesis and Gilgamesh here in a line-numbered format to compare:
Now Gilgamesh:
In the Gilgamesh passage, I left two blank lines to maintain the correlation between the two and show the parallels. The Genesis passage shows clear embellishments (again, a common literary device of the period) I took the Gilgamesh passage from Pritchard (1955, pp 94-95).
But we must also consider that Gilgamesh itself is not original with its flood story. A Sumerian myth was recorded in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. on a cuneiform tablet that described the destruction of the "seed of mankind" by the gods. This story is referred to as The Deluge and describes how Ziusudra, a particularly pious man, attentive to divine revelations, was chosen by the gods to survive the flood and who built a "huge boat."
The flood of The Deluge sweeps the land for 7 days and 7 nights until Utu, the Sun god, appears, at which point Ziusudra sacrifices an ox and is rewarded for his obedience with eternal life. "Ziusudra," by the way, means "life of long days."
The Deluge is then incorporated into the Akkadian Atrahasis epic, some details are added (i.e. the survivor's family is among the boat's passengers) and this is later incorporated into the Gilgamesh epic, which is a story that spread throughout the Near East.
Until recently, Biblical readers of Gen. 8:6-12 only had the Biblical account of the flood to go by until archaeological and linguistic recovery of the ancient languages occurred. It's now obvious that the Genesis author was drawing on an older oral tradition for the details of the flood and that it wasn't divinely influenced at all.
Key Elements
** The details of the birds are absent from The Deluge and Antrahasis epics, making Gilgamesh the biblical source.
The big failing of the religious is that they are believers and thus refuse to have an objective point of view. The advantage of the non-believer or the liberal-believer, is that they can look at the biblical stories and realize that these are myths created by an ancient set of cultures that borrowed heavily from existing stories and motifs to make points about morality and offer explanations. Most religious people aren't threatened by the notion that biblical stories are mythological and allegorical, but fundementalists like IAC and others in this forum fear this realization since they think it threatens to bring down the house of cards they superstitiously live in.
The irony is that it will probably be the fundamentalists that will finally cause most religious people to turn away from religious superstition as they continue to assert fiction and superstition trump the science that keeps providing consistent answers and explanation. The double irony is that the religious are anti-science at nearly every turn, but don't mind reaping the benefits science provides with new technologies from indoor plumbing to computers to refined petroleum.
The Gilgamesh epic is demonstrably the literary progenitor of the Noachian myth. I'll include passages from both Genesis and Gilgamesh here in a line-numbered format to compare:
[*]At the end of forty days
[*]Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and released a raven,
[*]Which flew back and forth as it waited for the waters to dry up on the earth
[*]Then he released a dove to see whether the waters were receding from the earth
[*]But the dove, finding nowhere to perch, returned to the ark, for there was water over the whole surface of the earth. Putting his hand out, he took hold of it and brought it back into the ark with him.
[*]After waiting seven more days, he again released the dove from the ark.
[*]In the evening the dove came back to him and there in his beak was a freshly-picked olive leaf! So Noah realized that the waters were receding from the earth.
[*]After waiting seven more days, he released the dove and now it returned no more.
Now Gilgamesh:
[*]When the seventh day arrived,
[*]I sent forth and set free a dove.
[*]The dove went forth but came back since no resting place was visible, she turned around.
[*]Then I set forth a swallow
[*]The swallow went forth but came back, since no resting place for it was visible, she turned around.
[*] .
[*] .
[*]I then set free a raven. The raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished, he eats, circles, caws, and turns not around.
In the Gilgamesh passage, I left two blank lines to maintain the correlation between the two and show the parallels. The Genesis passage shows clear embellishments (again, a common literary device of the period) I took the Gilgamesh passage from Pritchard (1955, pp 94-95).
But we must also consider that Gilgamesh itself is not original with its flood story. A Sumerian myth was recorded in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. on a cuneiform tablet that described the destruction of the "seed of mankind" by the gods. This story is referred to as The Deluge and describes how Ziusudra, a particularly pious man, attentive to divine revelations, was chosen by the gods to survive the flood and who built a "huge boat."
The flood of The Deluge sweeps the land for 7 days and 7 nights until Utu, the Sun god, appears, at which point Ziusudra sacrifices an ox and is rewarded for his obedience with eternal life. "Ziusudra," by the way, means "life of long days."
The Deluge is then incorporated into the Akkadian Atrahasis epic, some details are added (i.e. the survivor's family is among the boat's passengers) and this is later incorporated into the Gilgamesh epic, which is a story that spread throughout the Near East.
Until recently, Biblical readers of Gen. 8:6-12 only had the Biblical account of the flood to go by until archaeological and linguistic recovery of the ancient languages occurred. It's now obvious that the Genesis author was drawing on an older oral tradition for the details of the flood and that it wasn't divinely influenced at all.
Key Elements
- Deciding to send a flood to wipe out life on earth
- Selecting a worthy man to survive
- Building a boat
- Riding out the storm on the boat
- Offering a sacrifice on dry land at the end.
** The details of the birds are absent from The Deluge and Antrahasis epics, making Gilgamesh the biblical source.
The big failing of the religious is that they are believers and thus refuse to have an objective point of view. The advantage of the non-believer or the liberal-believer, is that they can look at the biblical stories and realize that these are myths created by an ancient set of cultures that borrowed heavily from existing stories and motifs to make points about morality and offer explanations. Most religious people aren't threatened by the notion that biblical stories are mythological and allegorical, but fundementalists like IAC and others in this forum fear this realization since they think it threatens to bring down the house of cards they superstitiously live in.
The irony is that it will probably be the fundamentalists that will finally cause most religious people to turn away from religious superstition as they continue to assert fiction and superstition trump the science that keeps providing consistent answers and explanation. The double irony is that the religious are anti-science at nearly every turn, but don't mind reaping the benefits science provides with new technologies from indoor plumbing to computers to refined petroleum.
1. Please indicate when the supposed flood occurred. Are we talking 6,000 BC? 10,000 BC? 100,000 BC?
2. Please provide some evidence as to the timescale it would take for e.g. the Siamese variety of cat to become fully genetically manifest from the original pair of non-Siamese cats. Is it 1,000 years? 2,000? 10,000?
Setting a dove free was a very common thing that people use to do in ancient times....another VAGUE similarity....
Building a boat during a flood woaaaaaaaah now thats a similarity..but wait don't people ALWAYS build boats during floods?
A catastrophe wiping out life on earth? Since when was a catastrophe something that didn't wipe out life on Earth?
Keep trying...
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL!
"What are you going to do today, Honey?"
"Dunno, luv. Thought I'd just relax in front of the window. Maybe set a dove free."
"But didn't you do that yesterday?"
"Yeah, I did. But we've got so many more trapped upstairs. No point in setting them all free at once!"
Last edited:
I merged these two posts together, but for others reading this, the infraction was for the meaningless content of the first post. Let this serve as a public warning to all that this is a discussion forum. While occasional off-topic banter and humor is fine, continued and habitual posts of this nature are complete and utter spam. Either discuss or don't discuss.
To address IAC's comment about "Darwinism," I'll agree with him. It is a whopper, if by "whopper" he means a large topic to chew on. This is why the undereducated and the credulous have such difficulty with it. They approach the topic from the fallacious perspective of personal incredulity and argue from ignorance. Unfortunately, most haven't the first clue about evolution and biology, chemistry, geology, and physics in general. Yet the rant away using "scientific" sounding terms, ironically appealing to authority, in their desire to hold together their own house of cards called religion.
Their erroneous belief is that anything but a literal interpretation of their mythology damages their cause and renders it invalid. I suppose, to some degree it does. But that isn't the problem of science (notice I said "science" not "evolution") since science is concerned only with an objective truth, regardless of religious mythology. If religious mythology is supported by scientific discovery, fine. If it isn't, this, too, is fine. In science, accepted truths are conditional, to be revised should new and demonstrable data be presented. Some truths are improved and enhanced. Others get completely scrapped with new paradigms built to offer better explanations.
Never has religion presented itself as such an institution and this is unfortunate. And, it is with much irony that is obviously lost completely on IAC, that he accuses me of being "gullible."
Setting a dove free was a very common tradition and thing to do in ancient times....very very common....the dove is like a messenger of peace...even today the effect of it is still here...