Noah's Ark Craze
- Thread starter Wilmet
- Start date
General_Paul
Registered Senior Member
Oh dear christ... not ANOTHER "Ark" find. This is total bullshit, how in the hell did those people get into IRAN!? What'd they claim to be secular archeologists? Whack jobs like that deserve to get caught in the cross fire when the nukes start to fly.
LOL. There was never a Noah's Ark - that is just wonderful twisted myth. The original come from very ancient Egypt when the Nile would flood every year and cause extensive devastation. When the flood would recede there was an annual festiaval known as Argha Noa - gee I wonder where the name Noah's Ark sprang from?
It is not a myth, Cris. It is a legend rooted in actual events. If it were only the remembrance of an Egyptian ritual, why would it have been recorded in sacred texts of hebrew monotheists, staunch anti-pagans? Surely they would have erased it.
If you read the ancient literatures from around the world, the great flood myth is found everywhere.
If you read the ancient literatures from around the world, the great flood myth is found everywhere.
Written at different times, having different reasons for the flood, describing completely different events, etc. There is no scientific proof of a mass world flood... not to mention it IS impossible to put every single species of animal into a boat... there are over 100,000,000 species to my knowlege... but im really just too lazt right now to look it up, cause I have to go.
Its a myth, sure, it may have some fact to it, maybe some guy built a boat, survived, and all his freinds died. And over the years, its got messed up, made beetter for a campfire, etc. That makes the most sense to me...
Its a myth, sure, it may have some fact to it, maybe some guy built a boat, survived, and all his freinds died. And over the years, its got messed up, made beetter for a campfire, etc. That makes the most sense to me...
learn the right way of thinking. (see above) Creationist method is superior.
You read the legend expecting it to be a scientific account.
It did happen, since Hebrews knew that making up lies about such things, and about God, was a sin.
Last edited:
General_Paul
Registered Senior Member
Its a legend buddy, a legend! It was written into a book 4,000 years ago by a bunch of people who were chased out of Egypt after a slave uprising. The legend of Noah is part of Hebrew beliefs, not world beliefs. The legends for floods are written at different times and explain different ideas and events, not some cataclysmic world flood. if there had been one, it would have been uncovered long ago.
The fossil filds of sea shells at the tops of mountains are all much MUCH older than 4,000 years, try hundreds of millions of years old. Most of those were from the times at which glaciation did extend over large areas of the world and those sea shells were deposited by glaciers, or are from periods of time pre-Cretacious when the continents were still merged in Pangaea, and when those mountain ranges were still at or near sea level and were exposed to tidal actions or yearly flooding.
Your flood myth is nothing more than a myth, get used to it. The world is moving past your type of ignorance centric blind following and moving onto a much more rational view of the world and the universe around us.
The fossil filds of sea shells at the tops of mountains are all much MUCH older than 4,000 years, try hundreds of millions of years old. Most of those were from the times at which glaciation did extend over large areas of the world and those sea shells were deposited by glaciers, or are from periods of time pre-Cretacious when the continents were still merged in Pangaea, and when those mountain ranges were still at or near sea level and were exposed to tidal actions or yearly flooding.
Your flood myth is nothing more than a myth, get used to it. The world is moving past your type of ignorance centric blind following and moving onto a much more rational view of the world and the universe around us.
Your strange 'scientific' conclusions are not based on a coherent understanding of reality. the evolutionist construct is just that, a construct, conclusions drawn from facts selected to design a particular view and interpreted that way. start with proper conclusion first, namely, that God is the Creator, then discover how the facts support it, and not just a group of selected facts with other facts excluded.
General_Paul
Registered Senior Member
?? What century did you come from anyways? That kind of babble sounds like the rants of a 16th Century monk, not a rational person of the modern era. I don't have a 'coherent' view of reality? And what is the 'correct' view of reality then Lawdog? Your view? We are all entitled to our views. My view just happens to be supported by SCIENCE, while yours is supported by nothing but your own personal views and "evidence" from a 4,000 year old book, and vague pseudo-ties to other flood legends in Europe.
The evidence that you have presented would not hold up at all at a scientific convention. I take in all the evidence presented to me and form a scientific picture in my mind and go from there. You just cower in your blind beliefs and pray to god.
The evidence that you have presented would not hold up at all at a scientific convention. I take in all the evidence presented to me and form a scientific picture in my mind and go from there. You just cower in your blind beliefs and pray to god.
God is spelled with a capital G. in your overconfident rationalism, which is not modern but a hold over from 17th century "enlightenment" you are easily brought in by dubious and professionally sounding scientific data (which have brought about a few medical and technological advances), the devil intermixes truth and error. Thus are you persuaded by numbers, statistics, fancy illustrations, and unfounded premises. All the time the beast awaits to devour your eternal soul, having through human instruments persuaded you that man is nothing more than an over complicated animal. shock and surprise will accompany your entry into the next world if you do not repent.
General_Paul
Registered Senior Member
...First off, the Enlightenment is a continuing process which began in the 18th Century, not the 17th Century. The 17th Century was a century riddled with something which we know as the 30 Years War, this great period of warfare between Protestants and Catholics. Further back, we've got the Inquisition! Goodie goodie...just what we all need, killing more Jews and Muslims!
And what you call "dubious and professionally sounding data" is scientific FACT. Go open up any 6th grade science book and you'll see the basis for human evolution from our simean ancestors around 6 MYA (Million Years Ago) when our species branched off. We can prove it through DNA scans and paleantology digs in Africa, where we EVOLVED. There is no sound scientific proof for Adam and Eve, the only proof there is is drawn from thousands of man hours of research, digging, and analysis of the evidence at hand. Why don't you go online and look up the evidence for our evolution. Here, so you won't have to go strain yourself looking, I'll list them here, straight from my Anthropology 201, Principles of Physical Anthropology, class-
1) Fossil Record
2) Genetics- We are 50% genetically identical to an amoebae. We are .2% genetically different from Great Apes, and .01% different from all other evolved homonids.
3) Biological comparisons-Homologies: The same bones are used for similar uses in animals.
4) Embryology- The study of human and animal embryos has found that humans within the womb go through a process of "mini-evolution" from the first cell split, to the final birthing process.
Finally, as an answer to the "beast devouring my soul," again, harkoning back to the middle ages. I look forward to the twilight of the kind of religious fundamentalism that you have shown.
And what you call "dubious and professionally sounding data" is scientific FACT. Go open up any 6th grade science book and you'll see the basis for human evolution from our simean ancestors around 6 MYA (Million Years Ago) when our species branched off. We can prove it through DNA scans and paleantology digs in Africa, where we EVOLVED. There is no sound scientific proof for Adam and Eve, the only proof there is is drawn from thousands of man hours of research, digging, and analysis of the evidence at hand. Why don't you go online and look up the evidence for our evolution. Here, so you won't have to go strain yourself looking, I'll list them here, straight from my Anthropology 201, Principles of Physical Anthropology, class-
1) Fossil Record
2) Genetics- We are 50% genetically identical to an amoebae. We are .2% genetically different from Great Apes, and .01% different from all other evolved homonids.
3) Biological comparisons-Homologies: The same bones are used for similar uses in animals.
4) Embryology- The study of human and animal embryos has found that humans within the womb go through a process of "mini-evolution" from the first cell split, to the final birthing process.
Finally, as an answer to the "beast devouring my soul," again, harkoning back to the middle ages. I look forward to the twilight of the kind of religious fundamentalism that you have shown.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Start with the conclusion.Lawdog said:
Start with the conclusion?
Start with the conclusion!
No, Lawdog, that is an affront to logic, it is an affront to intellect, it is a gross, and possibly unforgiveable, affront to God. Best mend your ways now. You do not know when you may be called.
Yes of course: One must conclude that God exists first. Then all first principles will fall into place and the mind can see clearly and reason well and properly ascertain the meanings of facts and evidence.
I conclude first that i am in a forest. Then I reason about the functions of individual plants and animals and their meanings. I do not take the individual plants and animals, separate them from their environs, and then expect to make proper conclusions about each one without taking into account their habitat. That is not a proper method.
Your method cannot see the forest through the trees.
In the same way, one reasons about the nature of God, Man, and creation reality, by first coming to the conclusion that one is a being among others created by God. then all evidence of things in creation make sense.
I conclude first that i am in a forest. Then I reason about the functions of individual plants and animals and their meanings. I do not take the individual plants and animals, separate them from their environs, and then expect to make proper conclusions about each one without taking into account their habitat. That is not a proper method.
Your method cannot see the forest through the trees.
In the same way, one reasons about the nature of God, Man, and creation reality, by first coming to the conclusion that one is a being among others created by God. then all evidence of things in creation make sense.
General_Paul
Registered Senior Member
WTF Lawdog!? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and had nothing to do with anything! All you are proving is your ignorance now.
I want you to explain the fossil record, genetics, embryology, and homologies to me as proof of god's creation of man.
I want you to explain the fossil record, genetics, embryology, and homologies to me as proof of god's creation of man.
Lawdog said:
learn the right way of thinking. (see above) Creationist method is superior.
You read the legend expecting it to be a scientific account.
It did happen, since Hebrews knew that making up lies about such things, and about God, was a sin.
*************
M*W: The ancient Hebrews were regular nomad Egyptians living in Egypt, and they did make up myths (i.e. lies) about their god, and they called them miracles.
Lawdog said:
*************
M*W: Lapdog, have you forgotten this is an intelligent community?
Lawdog
If we begin by assuming there is no god then everything also falls into place and can be perfectly and adequately explained using natural phenomena. That is infinitely more plausible than assuming the fantasy that a super being might exist capable of creating universes and which in turn requires a fantasy supernatural realm to support the fantasies that follow.
This is otherwise known as rationalization, i.e. taking something that is inherently irrational and making it appear rational. And irrational here means a conclusion that has no factual basis, i.e. the existence of a god.
If we begin by assuming there is no god then everything also falls into place and can be perfectly and adequately explained using natural phenomena. That is infinitely more plausible than assuming the fantasy that a super being might exist capable of creating universes and which in turn requires a fantasy supernatural realm to support the fantasies that follow.