# Ark/Flood



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Go!

I figured I would not try to stack the deck by telling anyone what type of examples they can use or how questions must be addressed or demand that discussion stays directly on point.
I realize that in order to stay on topic sometimes another path has to be taken to link back together with the topic later.

What should we start with first? The flood or the Ark?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

I stand by everything I said here:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=760590&highlight=noahs+ark


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 6, 2014)

Both. Provide evidence outside of the bible that corroborates the worldwide flood or the ark. If we all accepted the bible as a credible source there would be nothing to debate. However, only one group amongst us holds that both events occurred, so there must be evidence. 

Please lay it out for everyone's consideration.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I stand by everything I said here:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=760590&highlight=noahs+ark



Me too....


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I stand by everything I said here:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=760590&highlight=noahs+ark



Me
Three

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=760590&highlight=noahs+ark


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

For time's sake, I'll post links leading to subject matters pertinent to the Flood and ark. I don't expect anyone to read everything in the links by any means. Just find an article and talk about specific points in it if you want. But as I said elsewhere, I'm a little too pressed for time to type all this info myself.
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/
http://www.icr.org/earth-science/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/14/rare-diamond-reveals-earth-interior-is-all-wet/ (this one is mainly to make the point that the finding is consistent with a tectonic flood, as sinking tectonic plates would have dragged water down with them)
That should cover animals, fossils, geology, ark construction, flood mechanisms, and the like.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

Three cases of support for the other thread, so I'll address it in a bit.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

First thing I see in the other thread mentioned is the issue of the number of animals. "Species" is a name given thousands of years after the Hebrew word for "kind." Linnaeus attempted to define species to mean "kind", but admitted later that "kind" is closer to genus and family. Given that, Noah only needed 2000 to 3000 animals, with a generous maximum of 16000. And from those pairs came the diversity we have today. For example, mostly everyone agrees that every breed of dog, and dingos and coyotes, etc. share common descent. But not everyone would agree with the evolutionary view that all dogs descended further from some non-dog. Evolution has a "tree" of common descent, and biblical creationists have an "orchard" of common descent, if you can picture it.
Someone then mentioned saltwater killing fish. The oceans get most of their salinity from mineral deposition that occurs because of rivers. The ocean back then has been estimated to be what we could call brackish, so fish could survive. I don't know about anywhere on this forum, but some have said plants couldn't survive. However, Charles Darwin, who was a surprisingly good observational scientist when he wanted to be, demonstrated that seeds can remain viable in salt water for a year, and technically the whole earth was not covered for the entire extent of the Flood year. Mats of vegetation uprooted by the Flood would have provided dry environments for plants to grow upward in fertile conditions, and many of these mats sank to become coal while others found their way to land when the waters receded.
Someone on the other thread suggested the Flood was local, but God said He wouldn't send a similar flood and we have local floods all the time, so that idea doesn't mesh with the Bible.
That's all for my thoughts on page one of the other thread of the subject.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Lets start with the assumption that the Ark is built to the specifications that are mentioned in the Bible.
8 People are ready to man the vessel.
Now we need the animals.

Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.

Lets clear this up first.
Which is it?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

Seven of clean (for offering) and birds, and two of unclean. Gen. 6 says two of every kind _to keep them alive_, so only two were intended to preserve the kind and the others were for the offerings Noah made after the Flood.
Also, the seven is understood as seven pairs (seven two's or seven males and seven females).


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> First thing I see in the other thread mentioned is the issue of the number of animals. "Species" is a name given thousands of years after the Hebrew word for "kind." Linnaeus attempted to define species to mean "kind", but admitted later that "kind" is closer to genus and family. Given that, Noah only needed 2000 to 3000 animals, with a generous maximum of 16000. And from those pairs came the diversity we have today. For example, mostly everyone agrees that every breed of dog, and dingos and coyotes, etc. share common descent. But not everyone would agree with the evolutionary view that all dogs descended further from some non-dog. Evolution has a "tree" of common descent, and biblical creationists have an "orchard" of common descent, if you can picture it.
> Someone then mentioned saltwater killing fish. The oceans get most of their salinity from mineral deposition that occurs because of rivers. The ocean back then has been estimated to be what we could call brackish, so fish could survive. I don't know about anywhere on this forum, but some have said plants couldn't survive. However, Charles Darwin, who was a surprisingly good observational scientist when he wanted to be, demonstrated that seeds can remain viable in salt water for a year, and technically the whole earth was not covered for the entire extent of the Flood year. Mats of vegetation uprooted by the Flood would have provided dry environments for plants to grow upward in fertile conditions, and many of these mats sank to become coal while others found their way to land when the waters receded.
> Someone on the other thread suggested the Flood was local, but God said He wouldn't send a similar flood and we have local floods all the time, so that idea doesn't mesh with the Bible.
> That's all for my thoughts on page one of the other thread of the subject.



Not enough time to form coal. Not right conditions to form coal.
http://geology.com/rocks/coal.shtml

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carboniferous/carboniferous.php


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Seven of clean (for offering) and birds, and two of unclean. Gen. 6 says two of every kind _to keep them alive_, so only two were intended to preserve the kind and the others were for the offerings Noah made after the Flood.



How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?


I'm not aware of any of animals Noah would have taken that fit those descriptions (but I could be wrong). If they exist in land animals and birds, then they may be the result of variation after the Flood. But Noah didn't have to take worms or ants or any other bug or most amphibians. These all could survive outside of the ark on the floating mats, in the water itself, or (in the case of bugs) on the outside of the ark. Bugs still could have gotten in, but it was no concern of Noah's to count them. Noah was only told to bring land animals and birds that breathe "the breath of life." Bugs don't really breath in the sense that other animals do, and I'm not sure the Bible in Hebrew ever refers to them as _nephesh_, that is, living creatures with the breath of life. And many animals such as some turtles and amphibians can breathe through their skin while underwater, so they didn't have to be on the ark.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm not aware of any of animals Noah would have taken that fit those descriptions (but I could be wrong). If they exist in land animals and birds, then they may be the result of variation after the Flood. But Noah didn't have to take worms or ants or any other bug or most amphibians. These all could survive outside of the ark on the floating mats, in the water itself, or (in the case of bugs) on the outside of the ark. Bugs still could have gotten in, but it was no concern of Noah's to count them. Noah was only told to bring land animals and birds that breathe "the breath of life." Bugs don't really breath in the sense that other animals do, and I'm not sure the Bible in Hebrew ever refers to them as _nephesh_, that is, living creatures with the breath of life. And many animals such as some turtles and amphibians can breathe through their skin while underwater, so they didn't have to be on the ark.



How did Noah gather the animals that did go on the Ark?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm not aware of any of animals Noah would have taken that fit those descriptions (but I could be wrong). If they exist in land animals and birds, then they may be the result of variation after the Flood. But Noah didn't have to take worms or ants or any other bug or most amphibians. These all could survive outside of the ark on the floating mats, in the water itself, or (in the case of bugs) on the outside of the ark. Bugs still could have gotten in, but it was no concern of Noah's to count them. Noah was only told to bring land animals and birds that breathe "the breath of life." Bugs don't really breath in the sense that other animals do, and I'm not sure the Bible in Hebrew ever refers to them as _nephesh_, that is, living creatures with the breath of life. And many animals such as some turtles and amphibians can breathe through their skin while underwater, so they didn't have to be on the ark.



19"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20"Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."…


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> How did Noah gather the animals that did go on the Ark?


The Bible doesn't specifically say. The text seems to imply at least many came to him on their own. But he also could have hired people to bring animals to him, just as he could have hired people to help him build the ark. If the Flood was closely tied to tectonics, which I think it was, then there shouldn't have been much of a problem gathering animals given the time Noah had, because the continents may not have separated until during the Flood.


> Not enough time to form coal. Not right conditions to form coal.


Excerpt from http://www.icr.org/article/6093/
"In recent years, several laboratory experiments have shown that coal can form quickly, in just hours or days. Extreme conditions can accomplish it even more quickly. Heat is required, but not necessarily pressure. The process is accelerated by the presence of a volcanic clay, such as montmorillinite or kaolinite, always abundantly intermingled with coal. This clay can be seen as thin “clay partings” in unburned coal or as “clinkers” that must be removed from coal furnaces after the coal has burned. If these conditions are met, organic plant material (peat) will rapidly become coal.

When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, phenomenal processes were set in motion that instantly produced geologic results mimicking those we are taught to think required millions of years. A highly energetic blast of superheated steam was released that traveled at great speeds and devastated the surrounding forest. A ring where the trees were removed was surrounded by the “blow-down zone,” with a scorched zone surrounding that. After the eruption, a charred log was found with wood on one end and material on the other that under microscopic analysis proved to be a rather high grade of coal, formed essentially instantly."
The catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood would account for rapid formation of fossil fuels.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> 19"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20"Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."…


Gen. 7:15, "And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh *in which is the breath of life.*"
There's no rule that says a general statement can't be clarified with a later, more detailed statement.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> The Bible doesn't specifically say. The text seems to imply at least many came to him on their own. But he also could have hired people to bring animals to him, just as he could have hired people to help him build the ark. If the Flood was closely tied to tectonics, which I think it was, then there shouldn't have been much of a problem gathering animals given the time Noah had, because the continents may not have separated until during the Flood.



Did you do any research on where the land masses were 6000 years ago?



Bassquatch328 said:


> Excerpt from http://www.icr.org/article/6093/
> "In recent years, several laboratory experiments have shown that coal can form quickly, in just hours or days. Extreme conditions can accomplish it even more quickly. Heat is required, but not necessarily pressure. The process is accelerated by the presence of a volcanic clay, such as montmorillinite or kaolinite, always abundantly intermingled with coal. This clay can be seen as thin “clay partings” in unburned coal or as “clinkers” that must be removed from coal furnaces after the coal has burned. If these conditions are met, organic plant material (peat) will rapidly become coal.


Did I miss where it said water is required?


When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, phenomenal processes were set in motion that instantly produced geologic results mimicking those we are taught to think required millions of years. A highly energetic blast of superheated steam was released that traveled at great speeds and devastated the surrounding forest. A ring where the trees were removed was surrounded by the “blow-down zone,” with a scorched zone surrounding that. After the eruption, a charred log was found with wood on one end and material on the other that under microscopic analysis proved to be a rather high grade of coal, formed essentially instantly."
The catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood would account for rapid formation of fossil fuels.[/QUOTE]

Were there worldwide blasts the equivalent of Mt. St. Helens back to 6000years ago.
I am from the heart of Coal Country and the mines that I have been in and all of the local research that is done and taught here does not coincide with the findings of the Institute for Creative Research.
Do you find it at all off that the AnswersInGenesis site and the ICR site have findings that do not go along with modern science?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Gen. 7:15, "And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh *in which is the breath of life.*"
> There's no rule that says a general statement can't be clarified with a later, more detailed statement.



Where is the more detailed statement?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Where is the more detailed statement?


"in which is the breath of life" is the added detail to the statements in Genesis 6 of "every living thing of all flesh."


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Did you do any research on where the land masses were 6000 years ago?


No, but scientists, regardless of the timescale, generally agree that the continents were once joined. The creation account in Genesis implies one land mass. And Baumgardner and his colleagues have shown that the rapid separation of the continents is at least plausible.


bullethead said:


> Did I miss where it said water is required?


I'm not sure I understand the question. I assume you are asking why one would need water to form coal. One does not need water to form coal. But, copious amounts of magma and geologic activity such as would be expected in CPT would provide the conditions necessary to form coal.


bullethead said:


> Were there worldwide blasts the equivalent of Mt. St. Helens back to 6000years ago.
> I am from the heart of Coal Country and the mines that I have been in and all of the local research that is done and taught here does not coincide with the findings of the Institute for Creative Research.
> Do you find it at all off that the AnswersInGenesis site and the ICR site have findings that do not go along with modern science?


Let's put it this way. Under CPT, the seafloor we have now is not the one from before the Flood. So, under CPT, there was a brief point in time where there was no seafloor and magma rose from the mantle (making the oceans rise with it and sending up supersonic jets of vapor). So yes, there would have been more than enough heat. Can you clarify how the information ICR gave is different than secular information? Dr. Andrew Snelling wrote the following similar statements, with all three footnotes being references to secular publications:


> A research team at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois made material resembling coal by heating plant materials with clay minerals at 302°F (150°C) for two to eight months in the absence of oxygen. After a series of such experiments, the team concluded that coal can be produced directly from plant materials via thermal reactions speeded up by the clay minerals in only one to four months.8 Other experiments have also confirmed that clay particles act as chemical catalysts in a rapid coal-forming process.9 It is thus significant that clay minerals often account for up to 80 percent of the non-plant matter in actual coal.
> Subsequent experiments have more closely simulated natural geologic conditions, with temperatures of only 257°F (125°C) and lower pressures (equivalent to burial under 5,905 feet [1,800 meters] of wet sediments).10 After only 75 days, the original plant and wood materials still transformed into coal material, comparable chemically to coal from the same area of Indonesia.


(Footnotes: R. Hayatsu, R. L. McBeth, R. G. Scott, R. E. Botto, and R. E. Winans, “Artificial Coalification Study: Preparations and Characterization of Synthetic Macerals,” Organic Geochemistry 6 (1984): 463–471.
J. D. Saxby, P. Chatfield, G. H. Taylor, J. D. FitzGerald, I. R. Kaplan and S. T. Lu, “Effect of Clay Minerals on Products from Coal Maturation,” Organic Geochemistry 18, no. 3 (1992): 373–383.
W. H. Orem, S. G. Neuzil, H. E. Lerch, and C. B. Cecil, “Experimental Early-stage Coalification of a Peat Sample and a Petrified Wood Sample from Indonesia,” Organic Geochemistry 24.2 (1996): 111–125.)


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 6, 2014)

Okay I'd like to address the "variations after the flood" 
meaning one proto-canine carnivore could develop into coyotes, wolfs, hyenas, etc. That's basically "evolution" but sped up to fit into a few thousand year old timeline versus a few million years. Why? To counter the claim that thousands of species would have to fit on the ark. If we say "sure different species can develop but it's not the same as evolution" is looking for a loophole. Sorry - most of the animals alive today developed long before human civilization.
Human "civilization" came about from farming, which is a few thousand years old. Before then humans were very spread out and had a very low population, at one time down to a very small population - but there were thousands/millions of species by then, more than could ever fit on one ark, or a navy of arks. 
But humans were around when the last ice age ended, and no doubt there was flooding in many places across the globe - thus there are many flood stories. And since humans have been around we have always LOVED to embellish our stories. One guy saved his family and farm animals by having the sense to build a big raft as the glaciers retreated? Tell that story a few times and he built a ship to save ALL the animals. And since nobody traveled around the world much, people only knew the animals in their area. If I didn't leave my town these days I would say I only see a few dozen animals on a daily basis. These would all fit on a big boat!
Let's say the flood happened 10,000 years ago. Penguins of many varieties, polar bears, wooly mammoths, etc. etc. etc. of species around at that time. Creatures from every climate and vegetation niche all traveling to one location?
Not buying it. Great kids story, until kids can do basic math and comprehend how varied our plant's flora and fauna were, are, and will always be. Just sayin'


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> No, but scientists, regardless of the timescale, generally agree that the continents were once joined. The creation account in Genesis implies one land mass. And Baumgardner and his colleagues have shown that the rapid separation of the continents is at least plausible.


The timescale IS the KEY!
Of course the continents were joined at one time.
WHEN is the key.
Those same scientists say it is MUCH earlier than 6000 years ago.




Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm not sure I understand the question. I assume you are asking why one would need water to form coal. One does not need water to form coal. But, copious amounts of magma and geologic activity such as would be expected in CPT would provide the conditions necessary to form coal.


So in a 6000 year timetable the floating vegetative "mats" eventually laid on top of the now dried earth, magma and geological activity covered the "mats" and made coal?



Bassquatch328 said:


> Let's put it this way. Under CPT, the seafloor we have now is not the one from before the Flood. So, under CPT, there was a brief point in time where there was no seafloor and magma rose from the mantle (making the oceans rise with it and sending up supersonic jets of vapor). So yes, there would have been more than enough heat. Can you clarify how the information ICR gave is different than secular information? Dr. Andrew Snelling wrote the following similar statements, with all three footnotes being references to secular publications:


I cannot find any information outside of the IRC's generous leeway that matches up to floating mats of vegetation turning to coal in within the 6000 years of the Biblical timetable.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Okay I'd like to address the "variations after the flood"
> meaning one proto-canine carnivore could develop into coyotes, wolfs, hyenas, etc. That's basically "evolution" but sped up to fit into a few thousand year old timeline versus a few million years. Why? To counter the claim that thousands of species would have to fit on the ark. If we say "sure different species can develop but it's not the same as evolution" is looking for a loophole. Sorry - most of the animals alive today developed long before human civilization.
> Human "civilization" came about from farming, which is a few thousand years old. Before then humans were very spread out and had a very low population, at one time down to a very small population - but there were thousands/millions of species by then, more than could ever fit on one ark, or a navy of arks.
> But humans were around when the last ice age ended, and no doubt there was flooding in many places across the globe - thus there are many flood stories. And since humans have been around we have always LOVED to embellish our stories. One guy saved his family and farm animals by having the sense to build a big raft as the glaciers retreated? Tell that story a few times and he built a ship to save ALL the animals. And since nobody traveled around the world much, people only knew the animals in their area. If I didn't leave my town these days I would say I only see a few dozen animals on a daily basis. These would all fit on a big boat!
> ...



We know...we know....
I have to let the explanation happen before I present evidence that refutes it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> No, but scientists, regardless of the timescale, generally agree that the continents were once joined. The creation account in Genesis implies one land mass. And Baumgardner and his colleagues have shown that the rapid separation of the continents is at least plausible.





Like pieces in a giant jigsaw puzzle, continents have split, drifted and merged again many times throughout Earth’s history, but geologists haven’t understood the mechanism behind the moves. A new study now offers evidence that continents sometimes break along preexisting lines of weakness created when small chunks of land attach to a larger continent.

The paper — the cover story in the latest issue of Geology, the journal of the Geological Society of America — is the first to provide an explanation for the breaking patterns of continental plates, and uses the formation of an ocean about 500 million years ago to demonstrate that principle.

“We asked the question, ‘Why do oceans open where they do, and why does a continent choose to break where it does?’” said Damian Nance, Ohio University professor of geological sciences and co-author of the study.

Throughout Earth’s history, there have been six major continental assembly and breakup events, about 500 million years apart. Currently the Earth is in breakup cycle in which the Atlantic and Indian oceans are opening, Nance said.

The new study found that continents sometimes break along preexisting lines of weakness created during earlier continental collisions. Geologists had long suspected that break lines were created by the attachment of pieces onto larger land masses, but Nance and his co-authors were the first group to be able to prove this theory.

About 650 million years ago – when the first jellyfish evolved – North America, South America and Africa were stuck together as one large continent called Gondwana, with some smaller islands floating on a neighboring continental plate. Over time, these islands collided with the large group of continents and were attached to it in a process called accretion.

About 525 million years ago, that land mass broke apart, with North America on one side and South America, Africa and the small island pieces on the other. The two plates drifted apart, forming the Iapetus Ocean.

Twenty-five million years later – at the time of the first fish and land plants – the strip of land that used to be the small islands broke off South America and Africa and began moving across Iapetus towards North America. This movement closed the Iapetus Ocean while at the same time opening the Rheic Ocean.

Nance and his co-authors focused on these two particular breaks because they occurred along a “line of weakness” – namely the spot where the small islands had attached to the larger land mass. As the internal structure of the continent was already less stable there than it was across the two solid outside pieces, the continent broke along this preexisting line.

The scientists used geochemical “fingerprinting” to show that the small pieces of land, which today are found in the Appalachians, were originally created in an ocean. The radioactive element Samarium, which breaks down into various types of the element Neodymium, was used to determine the age of the rock (about one billion years). The amount of each element was typical of rock created in the ocean, away from larger continental masses.

The research is part of Nance’s larger interest in the Rheic Ocean, which he has been studying for more than a decade. He is part of a multinational UNESCO project to examine the history of this ocean and has conducted work in Mexico and Europe. The present study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada, the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science and a Mexican Papiit Grant.

The study’s lead author was J. Brendan Murphy of St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Canada. In addition to Nance, the other authors were Gabriel Gutierrez-Alonso of the Universidad the Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain; Javier Fernandez-Suarez of the Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain; J. Duncan Keppie of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico; Cecilio Quesada of IGME, Madrid, Spain; Rob A. Strachan of the University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Great Britain; and Jarda Dostal of St. Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

I think it's time to find out if Bassquatch is an Old Earther or a Young Earther.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Okay I'd like to address the "variations after the flood"
> meaning one proto-canine carnivore could develop into coyotes, wolfs, hyenas, etc. That's basically "evolution" but sped up to fit into a few thousand year old timeline versus a few million years. Why? To counter the claim that thousands of species would have to fit on the ark. If we say "sure different species can develop but it's not the same as evolution" is looking for a loophole. Sorry - most of the animals alive today developed long before human civilization.


It is not simply to counter the claim of species on the ark. Firstly, the Bible does not imply that the Hebrew word translated "kind" is even similar to the modern usage of "species." The Bible identifies hawks as a kind, owls as a kind, etc. and Moses certainly new that there are more than one variety of hawk and owl, etc. 
Furthermore, we have observed speciation, but we have not observed it to the extent of one kind becoming another (say a dog turning into a non-dog). For a "kind" to evolve into another "kind" and become more complex, an addition of new genetic information must occur. There have been cases of an addition of information, but it was information that was already present. The addition of new information into a genome to make a new structure with a new function to become a new kind has never been observed. In fact, most mutations are a decrease in genetic information. But speciation within the biblical standards for kind has been shown to occur rapidly. For example, sockeye salmon in Lake Washington were found to diverge into two separate species in as little as 13 generations (max. 56 years).


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 6, 2014)

Seems everyone has been resting up. LOL, it was quiet around here all summer. And now I can't keep up


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 6, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> O
> But humans were around when the last ice age ended, and no doubt there was flooding in many places across the globe - thus there are many flood stories. And since humans have been around we have always LOVED to embellish our stories. One guy saved his family and farm animals by having the sense to build a big raft as the glaciers retreated? Tell that story a few times and he built a ship to save ALL the animals. And since nobody traveled around the world much, people only knew the animals in their area. If I didn't leave my town these days I would say I only see a few dozen animals on a daily basis. These would all fit on a big boat!


What about the similarity of names? (Hawaiian Nu-u, Chinese Nu Wah, Lo Shen (Shem), Lo Han (Ham), and Japhu (Japheth), Sudanese Nuh). And why do many of the flood accounts only have eight people as surviving? Why not more? Why not less? Why eight? There are other similarities, but this is it for short notice.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 6, 2014)

I've been reading up a bit on the flood the past hour or so.
Somebody brought up a good point - Noah only had a week to gather up all the animals. Again, polar bears/penguins (opposite sides of the earth) kangaroos and other marsupials found only on an island continent - you get the idea. How did these animals for example get to the ark in a week?
Did these animals not exist back then?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> I've been reading up a bit on the flood the past hour or so.
> Somebody brought up a good point - Noah only had a week to gather up all the animals. Again, polar bears/penguins (opposite sides of the earth) kangaroos and other marsupials found only on an island continent - you get the idea. How did these animals for example get to the ark in a week?
> Did these animals not exist back then?



Go back and see his response about "Kinds" of animals.  Post #8,

Then he makes an argument about all the different "kinds" turning into various other species post flood.  Noah took a Bear "kind" that ate plants and then released them on Mount Ararat and they migrated around the world and became all the different types of bears.

He also mentions that he believes that lots of the animals came to the boat of their own accord.

And the hits keep coming.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Go back and see his response about "Kinds" of animals.  Post #8,
> 
> Then he makes an argument about all the different "kinds" turning into various other species post flood.  Noah took a Bear "kind" that ate plants and then released them on Mount Ararat and they migrated around the world and became all the different types of bears.
> 
> ...



His ideals of "Lite-evolution" sound like my ideals of "Lite-predestination." Animals can evolve in his ideal as in all canines but are only limited to canines. How convenient. What limited category would humans be in? Primates?
Maybe the other primates evolved from the Humans on the Ark.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Go back and see his response about "Kinds" of animals.  Post #8,
> 
> Then he makes an argument about all the different "kinds" turning into various other species post flood.  Noah took a Bear "kind" that ate plants and then released them on Mount Ararat and they migrated around the world and became all the different types of bears.
> 
> ...



I'm hoping he chimes in on what we can do on our "own accord." It would appear, logically that our  "own accord" could throw a wrench into "God's accord."


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> His ideals of "Lite-evolution" sound like my ideals of "Lite-predestination." Animals can evolve in his ideal as in all canines but are only limited to canines. How convenient. What limited category would humans be in? Primates?
> Maybe the other primates evolved from the Humans on the Ark.



Maybe, maybe, maybe....

That's the game you have to play when the Bible tells a story like the flood and an otherwise sensible person has to try to rationalize it.

What a pain it must be.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

Maybe Noah took dinosaur eggs or baby dinosaurs.  Maybe god gave Noah a special machine that created some kind of rudimentary gruel out of seaweed that all the creatures ate.  Maybe god put the animals into suspended animation.

Why not?

Aren't you guys tired of trying to make excuses for those ridiculous claims?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe, maybe, maybe....
> 
> That's the game you have to play when the Bible tells a story like the flood and an otherwise sensible person has to try to rationalize it.
> 
> What a pain it must be.



Yes it is and in that sense, one less pain you have over me.
Maybe I should envy your freedom over my freedom in Christ. Mine does contain many "what ifs" and rationalizations. Maybe even strange that an otherwise sensible person would even put himself in this predicament.
It's definitely not logical.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm hoping he chimes in on what we can do on our "own accord." It would appear, logically that our  "own accord" could throw a wrench into "God's accord."



Good point.  Revive a predestination thread and find out where he stands.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe Noah took dinosaur eggs or baby dinosaurs.  Maybe god gave Noah a special machine that created some kind of rudimentary gruel out of seaweed that all the creatures ate.  Maybe god put the animals into suspended animation.
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Aren't you guys tired of trying to make excuses for those ridiculous claims?



I am and I don't believe it really happened on an Ark.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes it is and in that sense, one less pain you have over me.
> Maybe I should envy your freedom over my freedom in Christ. Mine does contain many "what ifs" and rationalizations. Maybe even strange that an otherwise sensible person would even put himself in this predicament.
> It's definitely not logical.



I prefer the things that my position offers over the one that you have, obviously or I would still be there with you. 

You must get something out of it.  I admire how you continue to examine the value of your chosen beliefs.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I am and I don't believe it really happened on an Ark.



The story doesn't make sense.

I truly appreciate your honesty.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Go back and see his response about "Kinds" of animals.  Post #8,
> 
> Then he makes an argument about all the different "kinds" turning into various other species post flood.  Noah took a Bear "kind" that ate plants and then released them on Mount Ararat and they migrated around the world and became all the different types of bears.
> 
> ...



Hmmm......so how did the bears get from Mt. Ararat to Montana for example? You can't say the oceans levels were lower and they walked because - ummm - we just had that flood and all. The kangaroos would really have a long hike/swim ahead of them. It's almost as if the authors of the story had no idea how immense the world was and all the different climates and so forth that drive all the "adaptation".


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 6, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Hmmm......so how did the bears get from Mt. Ararat to Montana for example? You can't say the oceans levels were lower and they walked because - ummm - we just had that flood and all. The kangaroos would really have a long hike/swim ahead of them. It's almost as if the authors of the story had no idea how immense the world was and all the different climates and so forth that drive all the "adaptation".



I think that's a reasonable deduction.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 6, 2014)

As for the flood story being pretty much world-wide (and about nine percent of the stories mention exactly eight survivors) I have a theory. Think about this:

it's pretty much proven (via genetic markers and so on) that humans originated in Africa. Eventually they ventured out and spread mankind world-wide. So what if the "flood" story started with the original humans and thus spread world-wide? Some cultures got the story accurately, some did not. 
Writing is pretty new compared to the long oral history. 
Something to think about anyway.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Hmmm......so how did the bears get from Mt. Ararat to Montana for example? You can't say the oceans levels were lower and they walked because - ummm - we just had that flood and all. The kangaroos would really have a long hike/swim ahead of them. It's almost as if the authors of the story had no idea how immense the world was and all the different climates and so forth that drive all the "adaptation".



Not only that but if ONE carnivore ate ONE other animal that species would cease to exist.
But answers in genesis would have us believe that the animals preferred dead rotten meat that has been underwater for a year!
Not to mention these animals covered incredible distances while breeding along the way and repopulated the entire earth in a few hundred years.
(Lets not get into an 800 year old Noah doing his part to pop out a few million kids....And that Me, You and every single other person on the planet SHOULD trace their DNA back to the 8 people on that Ark.)
But lets really not forget that GOD created this flood to cleanse the wicked from the Earth, yet in no time flat the wicked were right back to being wicked. And in that same span the direct "pure" offspring of Noah and 7 others miraculously morphed into EVERY Race known, every Pigmy tribe, and returned to being Egyptians and Chinese and every nationality...AND created their own languages. PLUS they went right back to worshiping other Gods!! What a bad job Noah and the gang did to raise these numbskulls. It is as if God didn't see it coming.

So What an epic fail by an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God. Everything he wiped out came back exactly as it had left.....even though the Bible and bassquatch would have us think that the offspring of the 8 chosen people should have somehow solved all of the problems.


And Oh By The Way..all this was able to take place because worldwide, there was no flood, and these animals and people went on about their daily lives like nothing was wrong BECAUSE NOTHING WAS WRONG!!!
Every instance that I have posted about cultures and societies going on about their daily routines WHILE the Earth was flooded goes un-replied to.
The pyramids that were built before the supposed flood took place have ZERO water marks on them and ZERO water damage and those are just easy examples worldwide that show the same lack of evidence of a worldwide flood.

IF there was a "worldwide" flood, it was confined to what the people thought was the world but in reality it was localized.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Hmmm......so how did the bears get from Mt. Ararat to Montana for example? You can't say the oceans levels were lower and they walked because - ummm - we just had that flood and all. The kangaroos would really have a long hike/swim ahead of them. It's almost as if the authors of the story had no idea how immense the world was and all the different climates and so forth that drive all the "adaptation".



bassquatch has told me that since the flood (so lets be very generous and call it within 10,000 years) the continents went from being joined to separated and that is how the animals all got to the ark and back to their homelands...then the continents split and moved off to their current locations. And in that time all the animals and humans repopulated the Earth again.

WheeeeeW!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2014)

Another astonishing thing is that while The Skipper, Gilligan, The Professor, MaryAnn, Ginger, Thirsten and Lovey Howells, and apparently one other lucky gal floated all over the 196,935,000  square miles of the flooded Earths surface...they ended up landing within (another generous figure) a thousand square miles of where they launched from after a year of random floating.
Talk about another case for a localized event.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

Does anyone have an idea of how much it would have to rain to cover the highest mountain in 40 days?
Where did all that water go when the rain was over?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Not only that but if ONE carnivore ate ONE other animal that species would cease to exist.
> But answers in genesis would have us believe that the animals preferred dead rotten meat that has been underwater for a year!
> Not to mention these animals covered incredible distances while breeding along the way and repopulated the entire earth in a few hundred years.
> (Lets not get into an 800 year old Noah doing his part to pop out a few million kids....And that Me, You and every single other person on the planet SHOULD trace their DNA back to the 8 people on that Ark.)
> ...



Good points! There would have to be enough prey animals to support the predators until ecosystems got established. 
Maybe Noah had marshmallows on the ark to feed the bears like tourists do at Yellowstone. 

We did though as a species morph into all the different ethnic groups - but it took thousands of years. 

Kind of a side track, but Let's talk Adam and Eve. They had two sons, and most likely other kids after Cain and Abel in their many centuries long lifespans. I would have had a vasectomy around age 300 but whatever. Anyway one son killed another, and had to have a permanent obvious mark on him and was banished so that he would be known as a murderer when he went out into all the cities....stop.
What cities?  We went from Cain and Abel to whole cities full of people in almost the same paragraph? 
Also, when when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit God told them that one that day they shall die - but they lived to be 600 or something years old! Where can I get this fruit?
Take one bite and you live at least ten times longer than you normally would.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Good points! There would have to be enough prey animals to support the predators until ecosystems got established.
> Maybe Noah had marshmallows on the ark to feed the bears like tourists do at Yellowstone.
> 
> We did though as a species morph into all the different ethnic groups - but it took thousands of years.
> ...



YepYepYep!

It took "us" tens if not hundreds of thousands of years to adapt into the different ethnic groups and it all had to do with surviving. You either adapted or died. The strongest passed on the genes to the offspring as a slight change was made. Over many generations those adaptations became prominent.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Bassquatch328
> Someone on the other thread suggested the Flood was local, but God said He wouldn't send a similar flood and we have local floods all the time, so that idea doesn't mesh with the Bible.


An observation -
you are quick to reject ideas that don't mesh with the Bible but don't seem to have any problem defending the Bible with ideas that don't mesh with it. Heres just a couple -


> dinosaur egg


Please tell us how Noah knew an egg contained males or females.


> But Noah didn't have to take worms or ants or any other bug or most amphibians. These all could survive outside of the ark on the floating mats, in the water itself, or (in the case of bugs) on the outside of the ark.


Noah was given very specific instructions. None of which mentioned floating mats, swimming along or hanging on the outside of the ark.


> And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort *into the ark*,


You need to hold your own arguments to the same standards you are demanding that others do. As has been mentioned you are a well read articulate young man. But be careful that you aren't just regurgitating what you read but actually apply it inward and not just outward.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 7, 2014)

Since our more devout contributors are busy rolling their eyes in disgust and praying for our souls, I'll answer for them. 

In God all things are possible.

God got the animals to the ark.  How is irrelevant.

God got rid of the water after the rain stopped.  How is irrelevant.

God directed the hearts of carnivores to not eat one or both of others.  How is irrelevant.

God created all the races out of 10 middle eastern people.  How is irrelevant.


Have faith.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Me
> Three
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=760590&highlight=noahs+ark



That was a very good thread.  It's interesting to see that some folks who rarely posted in here jumped in.  Some of 'em have since been banned.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> I've been reading up a bit on the flood the past hour or so.
> Somebody brought up a good point - Noah only had a week to gather up all the animals. Again, polar bears/penguins (opposite sides of the earth) kangaroos and other marsupials found only on an island continent - you get the idea. How did these animals for example get to the ark in a week?
> Did these animals not exist back then?


Again, biblically, there was probably only one land mass before the Flood. No oceans had to be crossed. Polar bears most likely were not around yet, but some unknown member of the bear kind. Penguins do not always live in polar regions. Even today, some penguins live in South Africa, but there is fossil evidence of giant penguins in areas that are today tropical regions. Furthermore, Noah had more than a week. He had one week to *load* the ark, but not to build it or gather animals. Going by Noah's age when the Flood began, his age when his sons were born and allowing time for them to get married, and then comparing that to Noah's place in the 120 year grace period God gave between the time He said He wouldn't strive with man forever and the time the Flood actually came, Noah had anywhere from about 55-75 years to build the ark and gather food and animals.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Again, biblically, there was probably only one land mass before the Flood. No oceans had to be crossed. Polar bears most likely were not around yet, but some unknown member of the bear kind. Penguins do not always live in polar regions. Even today, some penguins live in South Africa, but there is fossil evidence of giant penguins in areas that are today tropical regions. Furthermore, Noah had more than a week. He had one week to *load* the ark, but not to build it or gather animals. Going by Noah's age when the Flood began, his age when his sons were born and allowing time for them to get married, and then comparing that to Noah's place in the 120 year grace period God gave between the time He said He wouldn't strive with man forever and the time the Flood actually came, Noah had anywhere from about 55-75 years to build the ark and gather food and animals.



Again
You disregard the information I posted here about WHEN the land masses broke apart and still assert that the continents were together and separated within the last 6000 years.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
And you refuse to do any research on your own. 
We are giving you cold hard scientific facts based off of years of study and you are using whatever guess gets you close to the story you NEED told so it jives with the nonsense.

Do you know anyone that lives to be over 200 years old let alone 800?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Again
> You disregard the information I posted here about WHEN the land masses broke apart and still assert that the continents were together and separated within the last 6000 years.
> You are being intellectually dishonest.
> And you refuse to do any research on your own.
> ...


Calling something no one alive today ever observed and about which the popular belief changes a cold hard fact is being intellectually dishonest. There are things I would like to say here but I'm having to juggle between replies a minute apart on two threads.
Have you ever heard what people feel like when they go into an oxygen-rich environment? They feel pretty good. Couple the difference in atmosphere before the Flood with the lack of mutations before the Flood, and you get long lives. You haven't notice that the lifespans before the Flood go in a steady downward trend and then after the Flood hits a sharp decline? That should be expected as more generations equal more mutations and the Flood forces a bottle neck and a radically different environment.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Calling something no one alive today ever observed and about which the popular belief changes a cold hard fact is being intellectually dishonest. There are things I would like to say here but I'm having to juggle between replies a minute apart on two threads.
> Have you ever heard what people feel like when they go into an oxygen-rich environment? They feel pretty good. Couple the difference in atmosphere before the Flood with the lack of mutations before the Flood, and you get long lives. You haven't notice that the lifespans before the Flood go in a steady downward trend and then after the Flood hits a sharp decline? That should be expected as more generations equal more mutations and the Flood forces a bottle neck and a radically different environment.





> You haven't notice that the lifespans before the Flood go in a steady downward trend and then after the Flood hits a sharp decline? That should be expected as more generations equal more mutations and the Flood forces a bottle neck and a radically different environment


You didn't "notice" that, you read it from sites like this -


> http://rcg.org/questions/p160.a.html
> Before God destroyed all but eight humans in the Great Flood, people lived for hundreds of years. The first man, Adam, lived for 930 years. Genesis 5 records that Methuselah, Noah’s grandfather, lived for 969 years! If anyone lived longer, the Bible does not mention him. Even Noah, who was 600 when the flood occurred, lived another 350 years after the flood first began—950 years total.
> The average age of the pre-flood patriarchs (Genesis 5), excluding Enoch (who was taken away for his protection) and Noah (whose life extended well beyond the flood) was about 907 years.
> Interestingly, from the time of the flood until the destruction of the tower of Babel, the average lifespan was approximately half. This is figured from the patriarchs who are listed in Genesis 11, when the average lifespan was about 459 years.


If you would like opposing information so you can have a rounded viewpoint leave those sites that only tell you what you want to hear.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 7, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> That was a very good thread.  It's interesting to see that some folks who rarely posted in here jumped in.  Some of 'em have since been banned.



piratebob64 was an interesting guy.  I never could quite figure him out.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 7, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Kind of a side track, but Let's talk Adam and Eve. They had two sons, and most likely other kids after Cain and Abel in their many centuries long lifespans. I would have had a vasectomy around age 300 but whatever. Anyway one son killed another, and had to have a permanent obvious mark on him and was banished so that he would be known as a murderer when he went out into all the cities....stop.
> What cities?  We went from Cain and Abel to whole cities full of people in almost the same paragraph?



And then God said incest is bad.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 7, 2014)

Also, the atmosphere wouldn't support enough water for that amount of rain. If it did, nothing could survive.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> bassquatch has told me that since the flood (so lets be very generous and call it within 10,000 years) the continents went from being joined to separated and that is how the animals all got to the ark and back to their homelands...then the continents split and moved off to their current locations. And in that time all the animals and humans repopulated the Earth again.
> 
> WheeeeeW!



He's right about the continents, just a few million years off. No No:
BTW they aren't done moving yet either! North America will collide with Europe in 200 million years or so.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

660griz said:


> Also, the atmosphere wouldn't support enough water for that amount of rain. If it did, nothing could survive.


The rain was not the prime source of the waters, the fountains of the deep being broken up was. Under CPT, the rain would have come from the supersonic jets of vapor that would have resulted from magma meeting the ocean, and said vapor condensed and fell as rain.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Does anyone have an idea of how much it would have to rain to cover the highest mountain in 40 days?
> Where did all that water go when the rain was over?



The ark animals and people were really thirsty after their ordeal - duh. It was the ultimate Big Gulp of Biblical proportions!


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> He's right about the continents, just a few million years off. No No:
> BTW they aren't done moving yet either! North America will collide with Europe in 200 million years or so.


Uniformitarianism in regard to past movement of tectonic plates leads to problems. 


> While the seafloor surface is relatively smooth, zebra-stripe magnetic patterns are obtained when the ship-towed instrument (magnetometer) observations average over mile-sized patches. Drilling into the oceanic crust of the mid-ocean ridges has also revealed that those smooth patterns are not present at depth in the actual rocks.7 Instead, the magnetic polarity changes rapidly and erratically down the drill-holes. This is contrary to what would be expected with slow-and-gradual formation of the new oceanic crust accompanied by slow magnetic reversals. But it is just what is expected with extremely rapid formation of new oceanic crust and rapid magnetic reversal during the Flood, when rapid cooling of the new crust occurred in a highly nonuniform manner because of the chaotic interaction with ocean water.
> 
> Furthermore, slow-and-gradual subduction should have resulted in the sediments on the floors of the trenches being compressed, deformed, and thrust-faulted, yet the floors of the Peru-Chile and East Aleutian Trenches are covered with soft, flat-lying sediments devoid of compressional structures. These observations are consistent, however, with extremely rapid subduction during the Flood, followed by extremely slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated from the continents and filled the trenches with sediment.


- Dr. Andrew Snelling


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> The rain was not the prime source of the waters, the fountains of the deep being broken up was. Under CPT, the rain would have come from the supersonic jets of vapor that would have resulted from magma meeting the ocean, and said vapor condensed and fell as rain.



Which would have flowed over the land and back into the oceans. 

You didn't hit the end of the water cycle. Water follows gravity where it can, and the landmasses of the earth are not a complete basin, and there's nothing showing that they ever were.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> The rain was not the prime source of the waters, the fountains of the deep being broken up was. Under CPT, the rain would have come from the supersonic jets of vapor that would have resulted from magma meeting the ocean, and said vapor condensed and fell as rain.



The rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights.
And, covered even the highest mountains. 
Uh, no. 
Not possible. 
Or our core is nothing but water. It aint.
To put it simply, all the water that was here, is still here.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You didn't "notice" that, you read it from sites like this


Why should that make a difference? You never "noticed" that some people in the world are cannibals. You read it somewhere. It does not make the information any less true.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

660griz said:


> The rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights.
> And, covered even the highest mountains.
> Uh, no.
> Not possible.
> Or our core is nothing but water. It aint.


Hot things tend to rise, and cold things tend to sink. That has to do with density. If the cold, dense seafloor were to sink into the hot, less dense magma of the mantle, and displace said magma, said magma will rise and push the ocean up several thousand feet. It may also interest you to know that recent findings suggest there is as much water in the mantle as there is in all of our oceans. And how are mountains formed? When tectonic plates push against each other and raise up. What was the nature of the Flood in a Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model? I'll let you figure that one out. There were mountains before the Flood, but they wouldn't have been as tall.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which would have flowed over the land and back into the oceans.
> 
> You didn't hit the end of the water cycle. Water follows gravity where it can, and the landmasses of the earth are not a complete basin, and there's nothing showing that they ever were.


If the actual sea level rose thousands of feet so it was above all land, there would be no where for water to recede. But as the new seafloor would have cooled and sank down to a lower elevation, it would bring the ocean to a lower elevation with it.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 7, 2014)

The continents were connected - it was called Pangia I think. Unless Noah had a time machine to take him back a billion years! There's the last piece of our puzzle. 

Also if people lived to be 900 years then skeletons and other evidence found from proto-man up until recently dead people would attest to this. There would be vast differences - so far no skeletons show the wear and tear or other markers of incredible longevity. Other than cranial capacity, general body shape, height etc skeletons are pretty much the same. 

Imagine having a conversation with a 900 year old:
"back when I was a kid there was nothing but lush jungle as far as the eye could see. We had sabre toothed tigers running around! Now it's just desert and goats. And don't get me started on the cost-of-living increases!"


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

> Kind of a side track, but Let's talk Adam and Eve. They had two sons, and most likely other kids after Cain and Abel in their many centuries long lifespans. I would have had a vasectomy around age 300 but whatever. Anyway one son killed another, and had to have a permanent obvious mark on him and was banished so that he would be known as a murderer when he went out into all the cities....stop.
> What cities? We went from Cain and Abel to whole cities full of people in almost the same paragraph?


The Bible says Cain built cities. And no where in the passage of Cain killing Abel does anyone mention cities. Cain said "whenever anyone should find me" they would kill him. Who says you have to be in a city to be found?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> The continents were connected - it was called Pangia I think. Unless Noah had a time machine to take him back a billion years! There's the last piece of our puzzle.
> 
> Also if people lived to be 900 years then skeletons and other evidence found from proto-man up until recently dead people would attest to this. There would be vast differences - so far no skeletons show the wear and tear or other markers of incredible longevity. Other than cranial capacity, general body shape, height etc skeletons are pretty much the same.
> 
> ...


The lack of mutations that would cause longer lifespans in the first place would by necessity and principle cause a higher standard of health than what exists today. Also, it is entirely possible that the skull differences we see in people such as Neanderthal are simply the natural course of growth when living that long is possible. (Even now there are people with a protruding brow that would make any Neanderthal jealous!)


----------



## 660griz (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Hot things tend to rise, and cold things tend to sink. That has to do with density. If the cold, dense seafloor were to sink into the hot, less dense magma of the mantle, and displace said magma, said magma will rise and push the ocean up several thousand feet.


 O.k. Ocean rose. No worldwide flood. 





> It may also interest you to know that recent findings suggest there is as much water in the mantle as there is in all of our oceans.


 Keyword...suggest. They don't know.  





> There were mountains before the Flood, but they wouldn't have been as tall.


Acutally, they could have been taller. The newer the mountain the higher they are. I.e. Rockies, Appalachians.

There is also evidence that the Black Sea was responsible for the 'world wide' flood. Localized as most folks realized. 

Sediment core-samples the scientists took from the bottom of the Black Sea revealed sections of once-dry, sun-baked land. 

Geologists Walter Pitman and William Ryan were the first to gather evidence that the Black Sea flooded 7500 years ago. 
These sediments were then covered by sections of uniform mud, strongly suggesting that these plains underwent a long-ago influx of saltwater. Though not worldwide, this cataclysmic event occurred at what could have been a locus of human activity at the time.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 7, 2014)

Or another way to think of it. Before any other people are mentioned there are only four people in Genesis:
1. Adam
2. Eve
3. Cain
4. Abel

not too hard to spot the bad guy even with rudimentary logic and reasoning.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> If the actual sea level rose thousands of feet so it was above all land, there would be no where for water to recede. But as the new seafloor would have cooled and sank down to a lower elevation, it would bring the ocean to a lower elevation with it.



If. If. If. 

Do you have any geologic proof that this is what happened? 

As the ocean, Atlantic, opens between one set of continents that are newly created the ocean on the other side has to be shrinking by a proportionate amount, or the land between has to get higher, or lower to account for the change. 

The law of conservation of mass tells us that matter can not be created, nor destroyed, but merely change forms. So the mass of the earth, minus asteroid impacts, has always been the same as far as plate tectonics are concerned. So expansion in one area has to result in subduction to account for the divergent boundary. Either way, the amount of water present on the earth is not enough to cover the entire earth without the same absorbing processes reclaiming that which was in the mantle and leaving the rest to flow into the ocean basins as it always has. 

My theory matches current understandings of mass, the water cycle, plate tectonics, and gravity as verified by observation and experiment time and again. Yours matches what one book tells you and what other people have written about that one book. 

Unless you can source information to substantiate your claims that can't be root traced to the Bible you have zero hope of winning any debate on this.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Hmmm......so how did the bears get from Mt. Ararat to Montana for example? You can't say the oceans levels were lower and they walked because - ummm - we just had that flood and all. The kangaroos would really have a long hike/swim ahead of them. It's almost as if the authors of the story had no idea how immense the world was and all the different climates and so forth that drive all the "adaptation".


Number one is people have boats. Number two is the necessary result of a CPT flood. See Dr. Michael Oard's (with the national weather service) work on the subject. In short, warm oceans and debris in the atmosphere from volcanic activity would have resulted in an ice age. And an ice age means lower sea levels because the water is on land in the form of snow. And lower sea levels mean land bridges.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Number one is people have boats. Number two is the necessary result of a CPT flood. See Dr. Michael Oard's (with the national weather service) work on the subject. In short, warm oceans and debris in the atmosphere from volcanic activity would have resulted in an ice age. And an ice age means lower sea levels because the water is on land in the form of snow. And lower sea levels mean land bridges.



The ice age was after the flood?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> The Bible says Cain built cities. And no where in the passage of Cain killing Abel does anyone mention cities. Cain said "whenever anyone should find me" they would kill him. Who says you have to be in a city to be found?



Who populated these cities?  Where did he get his wife?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 7, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Who populated these cities?  Where did he get his wife?



His sister.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Who populated these cities?  Where did he get his wife?


Cain and his descendants and the rest of Adam and Eve's descendents populated the cities. Cain most likely married his sister. He could have married a niece or something, but that would mean someone somewhere would have to marry their sister. Being the second generation of humanity, and only the first born generation, the number of mutations present would have been zero to a handful at most. Genetic problems are the only reason incest is considered a bad thing. Besides, any way you look at it, anyone human on earth is your blood relative, and that's even believed by secular scientists. Every human is related to every other human as closely as 40 generations back I think it was, and then most secular scientists recognize that those started further back with one original pair of two people.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Number one is people have boats. Number two is the necessary result of a CPT flood. See Dr. Michael Oard's (with the national weather service) work on the subject. In short, warm oceans and debris in the atmosphere from volcanic activity would have resulted in an ice age. And an ice age means lower sea levels because the water is on land in the form of snow. And lower sea levels mean land bridges.



Please see my Thousands v. Millions thread.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

I notice many of the questions being raised are plainly addressed in the links I posted on page one. I'm not going to bounce between two threads typing out things that can be easily found elsewhere. By all means, if you have an objection with a specific article or part of an article in the links I provided, raise it here. But to ask me to answer questions you could find simply by reading is intellectually lazy.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> I notice many of the questions being raised are plainly addressed in the links I posted on page one. I'm not going to bounce between two threads typing out things that can be easily found elsewhere. By all means, if you have an objection with a specific article or part of an article in the links I provided, raise it here. But to ask me to answer questions you could find simply by reading is intellectually lazy.



Yesterday you didn't want to derail threads, now you want to consolidate them into one? 

My question about the squaring of thousands to billions of years, in your mind, can't be found in those links, can it? 

Are you saying that you're buying off 100% verbatim on what they're saying?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yesterday you didn't want to derail threads, now you want to consolidate them into one?


No. I'm staying on the proper topic in each thread, but it gets a little disorganized typing out a reply and then BAM! "Bassquatch328, such and such replied to Ark/Flood." (30 seconds later) "Bassquatch328, such and such replied to Give a Defense." It would simply be more convenient for me to be able to disregard half of those posts that ask questions addressed in the links I provided.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My question about the squaring of thousands to billions of years, in your mind, can't be found in those links, can it?


Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if physical evidence addressing the discrepancy between a 6,000 year old earth and a 4 billion year old earth can be found in the links I provided? It can, but be aware that I did not provide links to specific articles, but to pages where the relevant articles have already been gathered.



> Are you saying that you're buying off 100% verbatim on what they're saying?


No. I've read some of the stuff and thought it didn't jive, but I do agree with the majority of it, and some of it that I've asked questions about was explained later. But it's easier and saves space to just allow y'all to investigate the links I posted, where people with their Doctorates both raise specific evidence and elaborate on it instead of someone who hasn't graduated high school trying to summarize it. But when you find a specific claim you would like to address, bring it here and we'll discuss it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> No. I'm staying on the proper topic in each thread, but it gets a little disorganized typing out a reply and then BAM! "Bassquatch328, such and such replied to Ark/Flood." (30 seconds later) "Bassquatch328, such and such replied to Give a Defense." It would simply be more convenient for me to be able to disregard half of those posts that ask questions addressed in the links I provided.
> 
> 
> Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if physical evidence addressing the discrepancy between a 6,000 year old earth and a 4 billion year old earth can be found in the links I provided? It can, but be aware that I did not provide links to specific articles, but to pages where the relevant articles have already been gathered.
> ...



How old do* you* think the earth is? 

When do *you* think was the last ice age? 

That's what I'm asking here. After all of your reading and all of your studying, and including all of your faith, what are the values for the questions above?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How old do* you* think the earth is?
> 
> When do *you* think was the last ice age?
> 
> That's what I'm asking here. After all of your reading and all of your studying, and including all of your faith, what are the values for the questions above?


Based on the Bible, the earth would be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few decades. I'm not qualified to make scientific assessments, but I based on the different ideas of those who are, I think that age and other factors explain more than long ages do (or at least requires fewer rescuing devices). The main subject that separates thousands from millions and billions would be the Flood, because the Flood would have laid down the majority of the geologic column we have today and has some bearing on radioactive decay (mainly C-14, and others are more affected by nuclear acceleration). Interestingly, unless I'm mistaken, the main reason Lyell said millions of years was because he just didn't like the Bible, but millions was just an arbitrary number, which is one of the reasons the believed age of the earth has changed so much.
As far as the Ice Age goes (only one, not multiple), it would have included Job's time (Job mentioned frozen seas, etc.). But that doesn't really tell a beginning and end, so I do take much of others' word on that one. That being the case, the Ice Age is thought to have lasted about 700 years, with its height being about 500 years after the Flood. You'd be better to read Dr. Michael Oard's work for specifics.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How old do* you* think the earth is?
> 
> When do *you* think was the last ice age?
> 
> That's what I'm asking here. After all of your reading and all of your studying, and including all of your faith, what are the values for the questions above?


Based on the Bible, the earth would be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few decades. I'm not qualified to make scientific assessments, but I based on the different ideas of those who are, I think that age and other factors explain more than long ages do (or at least requires fewer rescuing devices). The main subject that separates thousands from millions and billions would be the Flood, because the Flood would have laid down the majority of the geologic column we have today and has some bearing on radioactive decay (mainly C-14, and others are more affected by nuclear acceleration). Interestingly, unless I'm mistaken, the main reason Lyell said millions of years was because he just didn't like the Bible, but millions was just an arbitrary number, which is one of the reasons the believed age of the earth has changed so much.
As far as the Ice Age goes (only one, not multiple), it would have included Job's time (Job mentioned frozen seas, etc.). But that doesn't really tell a beginning and end, so I do take much of others' word on that one. That being the case, the Ice Age is thought to have lasted about 700 years, with its height being about 500 years after the Flood. You'd be better to read Dr. Michael Oard's work for specifics.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Based on the Bible, the earth would be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few decades. I'm not qualified to make scientific assessments, but I based on the different ideas of those who are, I think that age and other factors explain more than long ages do (or at least requires fewer rescuing devices). The main subject that separates thousands from millions and billions would be the Flood, because the Flood would have laid down the majority of the geologic column we have today and has some bearing on radioactive decay (mainly C-14, and others are more affected by nuclear acceleration). Interestingly, unless I'm mistaken, the main reason Lyell said millions of years was because he just didn't like the Bible, but millions was just an arbitrary number, which is one of the reasons the believed age of the earth has changed so much.
> As far as the Ice Age goes (only one, not multiple), it would have included Job's time (Job mentioned frozen seas, etc.). But that doesn't really tell a beginning and end, so I do take much of others' word on that one. That being the case, the Ice Age is thought to have lasted about 700 years, with its height being about 500 years after the Flood. You'd be better to read Dr. Michael Oard's work for specifics.



I'm not interested in what the good doctor has to say. I'm interested in what you've internalized. 

That's why I asked how you personally square the difference. I've heard the arguments for both sides, and the side I subscribe to has more stuff that I can point to, and touch, as justification. 

Do you just consider the scientific explanation to be flawed, as described by your statement about the C14 and the water? Or do you think that the Bible is metaphoric in their use of the term year? 

Was the universe literally created in 7 days? 

Basically I'm asking if you're a believer of the bible being literal than figurative, as a whole.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Calling something no one alive today ever observed and about which the popular belief changes a cold hard fact is being intellectually dishonest. There are things I would like to say here but I'm having to juggle between replies a minute apart on two threads.
> Have you ever heard what people feel like when they go into an oxygen-rich environment? They feel pretty good. Couple the difference in atmosphere before the Flood with the lack of mutations before the Flood, and you get long lives. You haven't notice that the lifespans before the Flood go in a steady downward trend and then after the Flood hits a sharp decline? That should be expected as more generations equal more mutations and the Flood forces a bottle neck and a radically different environment.



Read your first sentence.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You didn't "notice" that, you read it from sites like this -
> 
> If you would like opposing information so you can have a rounded viewpoint leave those sites that only tell you what you want to hear.



Precisely
All of his "well thought out and mature answers" are a copy/paste or come from Fundamentalist sites.

NONE of those sites offer up anything but an assertion and no one outside of those circles agrees with them. The facts do not back them up.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not interested in what the good doctor has to say. I'm interested in what you've internalized.
> 
> That's why I asked how you personally square the difference. I've heard the arguments for both sides, and the side I subscribe to has more stuff that I can point to, and touch, as justification.
> 
> ...


Both explanations are scientific, but they are from two different viewpoints. The same evidence is therefore interpreted differently. (However, the amount of original C-14 in organisms in the past would not be the same as today any way you look at it, so I'm not really sure why secularists assume they were).
The Bible can't just be lumped as literal or figurative as a whole. It would be pretty silly to take most of the Psalms literally. But, yes, Genesis, with some exceptions (prophecy), is of the literal historical narrative genre. So creation week in Genesis 1 was six literal, 24-hour days followed by one literal 24-hour day of rest. Until people started to believe the earth was older, there people saw no reason to assume the days of creation were anything but 24-hour days. The main reason we can be sure they are 24-hour days today is because God told Moses in Exodus why He took 6 days and rested 1 day. God, of course, could have created everything in an instant, but He deliberately took a week to set an example for our benefit. So if one is going to be true to the text, there is no room for saying they were figurative days (and actually typical usage of Hebrew grammar concurs with a literal day definition). Interestingly, when the French tried a 10-day week during their first revolution to be more secular, the animals started to die from exhaustion (just a little tidbit).


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> I notice many of the questions being raised are plainly addressed in the links I posted on page one. I'm not going to bounce between two threads typing out things that can be easily found elsewhere. By all means, if you have an objection with a specific article or part of an article in the links I provided, raise it here. But to ask me to answer questions you could find simply by reading is intellectually lazy.



Addressed by those links but addressed incorrectly.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> *Both explanations are scientific*, but they are from two different viewpoints. The same evidence is therefore interpreted differently. (However, the amount of original C-14 in organisms in the past would not be the same as today any way you look at it, so I'm not really sure why secularists assume they were).
> *The Bible can't just be lumped as literal or figurative as a whole*. It would be pretty silly to take most of the Psalms literally. But, yes, Genesis, with some exceptions (prophecy), is of the literal historical narrative genre. So creation week in Genesis 1 was six literal, 24-hour days followed by one literal 24-hour day of rest. Until people started to believe the earth was older, there people saw no reason to assume the days of creation were anything but 24-hour days. The main reason we can be sure they are 24-hour days today is because God told Moses in Exodus why He took 6 days and rested 1 day. God, of course, could have created everything in an instant, but He deliberately took a week to set an example for our benefit. So if one is going to be true to the text, there is no room for saying they were figurative days (and actually typical usage of Hebrew grammar concurs with a literal day definition). Interestingly, *when the French tried a 10-day week during their first revolution to be more secular, the animals started to die from exhaustion* (just a little tidbit).



Science is literal, buddy. You're contradicting yourself. 

You're going to have cite yourself on this last claim...


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Why should that make a difference? You never "noticed" that some people in the world are cannibals. You read it somewhere. It does not make the information any less true.





> It does not make the information any less true


Want an Atheist website link? The fact that its Atheist doesn't make the information any less true.
We could bombard you with Atheist website links to refute every one of your arguments but we don't. 
Think to your self why it is that we dont.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Both explanations are scientific, but they are from two different viewpoints. The same evidence is therefore interpreted differently. (However, the amount of original C-14 in organisms in the past would not be the same as today any way you look at it, so I'm not really sure why secularists assume they were).
> The Bible can't just be lumped as literal or figurative as a whole. It would be pretty silly to take most of the Psalms literally. But, yes, Genesis, with some exceptions (prophecy), is of the literal historical narrative genre. So creation week in Genesis 1 was six literal, 24-hour days followed by one literal 24-hour day of rest. Until people started to believe the earth was older, there people saw no reason to assume the days of creation were anything but 24-hour days. The main reason we can be sure they are 24-hour days today is because God told Moses in Exodus why He took 6 days and rested 1 day. God, of course, could have created everything in an instant, but He deliberately took a week to set an example for our benefit. So if one is going to be true to the text, there is no room for saying they were figurative days (and actually typical usage of Hebrew grammar concurs with a literal day definition). Interestingly, when the French tried a 10-day week during their first revolution to be more secular, the animals started to die from exhaustion (just a little tidbit).


Genesis does read as though the heavens and the earth were finished on the sixth day:
"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."2
It says "sixth day." But you need to know that Genesis was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew language uses fewer words than English, bringing greater ambiguity. For example, in Hebrew, "Earth" can mean land, ground, region, or country.
The word "day" (which is "yom" in Hebrew) can mean: a 24-hour day, daytime, today, forever, continually, or an undetermined amount of time. So, the "sixth day" is actually an unknown length of time. There is nothing that requires us to read it as six 24-hours.
You might ask, but what about the phrase that's with it?... "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."3 Doesn't that say 24 hours? No. "'Evening and morning' is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral...like yom, denote a long and indefinite period."4

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html
Make sure you check out the website that is disagreeing with you.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Addressed by those links but addressed incorrectly.


Translation: "I'm too intellectually lazy to read them so I assume they are wrong instead of finding a specific claim to address."


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Science is literal, buddy. You're contradicting yourself.
> 
> You're going to have cite yourself on this last claim...


Who said science wasn't literal? I said Genesis is literal historical narrative except for prophecies. But to say the entire Bible is literal is just an ignorance of literature and context. Not even secular history books are completely literal throughout. When someone is described as a lame duck president, does that mean the president was actually a lame duck, or is lame duck a figure of speech? Parts of the Bible are literal and parts are figurative. The same goes for many texts.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Genesis does read as though the heavens and the earth were finished on the sixth day:
> "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."2
> It says "sixth day." But you need to know that Genesis was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew language uses fewer words than English, bringing greater ambiguity. For example, in Hebrew, "Earth" can mean land, ground, region, or country.
> The word "day" (which is "yom" in Hebrew) can mean: a 24-hour day, daytime, today, forever, continually, or an undetermined amount of time. So, the "sixth day" is actually an unknown length of time. There is nothing that requires us to read it as six 24-hours.
> ...



Except the historic view of Hebrew scholars, whether they believe the Bible or not, has been that yom, in the context of Genesis chapter 1, can only mean a literal day. Take for example Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University). 


> So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.


Furthermore, yom, when used without a preposition, with qualifiers such as evening and morning, and a number, means a literal day in every other case in the OT. Why should Genesis chapter 1 be any different?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 7, 2014)

People had boats, I get that. So they ferried animals around the globe? Doesn't sound very cost effective. 
I know all about ice ages. They do indeed lower ocean levels, except the last one ended way before the alleged time of the flood. So the post-flood critters couldn't have taken advantage of the lower water levels. 

I'm really leaning toward many localized floods from ice age melting/retreating and changing water levels and water flow in general. Humans were definitely around through that and those stories were not likely to be forgotten soon.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Want an Atheist website link? The fact that its Atheist doesn't make the information any less true.
> We could bombard you with Atheist website links to refute every one of your arguments but we don't.
> Think to your self why it is that we dont.


Atheists make many true statements. But regardless of who makes the statement, the statement is judged on its own merit. It does not seem bullethead realizes this. If everything said by the people I reference is wrong (not saying everything they say is right either), than Princeton, Cornell, Los Alamos National Laboratory, numerous secular journals, and the governments of the US, Britain, Japan, Australia, etc. which published them, gave them Doctorates, and hired them for international research, should be quite embarrassed that they made such egregious errors. I don't object to having links posted for me to see. But to choose not to read articles I have suggested simply because of the author's worldview and association with an organization is quite silly.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> People had boats, I get that. So they ferried animals around the globe? Doesn't sound very cost effective.
> I know all about ice ages. They do indeed lower ocean levels, except the last one ended way before the alleged time of the flood. So the post-flood critters couldn't have taken advantage of the lower water levels.
> 
> I'm really leaning toward many localized floods from ice age melting/retreating and changing water levels and water flow in general. Humans were definitely around through that and those stories were not likely to be forgotten soon.


You still have not reconciled the similarities as detailed as names and the peculiar number eight.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Except the historic view of Hebrew scholars, whether they believe the Bible or not, has been that yom, in the context of Genesis chapter 1, can only mean a literal day. Take for example Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University).
> Furthermore, yom, when used without a preposition, with qualifiers such as evening and morning, and a number, means a literal day in every other case in the OT. Why should Genesis chapter 1 be any different?


According to Rodney Whitefield, Ph.D. -
His conclusions -


> Conclusion: What does all the foregoing mean for understanding Genesis 1?
> 1) The uniqueness of the Hebrew numbering of the creative “yom” actually supports the view that the
> creative “yom” are not ordinary (24-hour) days.
> 2) The numbering of the creative “yom” does not exclude the “extended period” or “age” meaning of
> ...


The info -
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf
Please note Im not telling you this information is right and your information is wrong. Im just showing you that if you make an effort you can quickly find both sides of a subject. Your next mission would be to discredit every opposing piece of information to prove your info is correct. Then look for info that discredits what you are using to discredit the original info. 
So no Welcome Back Kotter for you for a looooong time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Atheists make many true statements. But regardless of who makes the statement, the statement is judged on its own merit. It does not seem bullethead realizes this. If everything said by the people I reference is wrong (not saying everything they say is right either), than Princeton, Cornell, Los Alamos National Laboratory, numerous secular journals, and the governments of the US, Britain, Japan, Australia, etc. which published them, gave them Doctorates, and hired them for international research, should be quite embarrassed that they made such egregious errors. I don't object to having links posted for me to see. But to choose not to read articles I have suggested simply because of the author's worldview and association with an organization is quite silly.


If you think all those people get those titles because they are right then you're very mistaken. Think of all the titled people who work every day on things that are not yet proven or even understood or even discovered.


> and hired them for international research


If they are right and already know, what exactly are they researching?


> simply because of the author's worldview and association with an organization is quite silly.


Because its predictable. You are debating with people who have been researching this stuff longer than you have been alive. Does that 100% justify it? No. But you can quickly weed out the same ol' same ol'. There is something you need to understand. Every one of your beliefs is based on the Bible. Every single Christian who debates here information comes from the Bible. So you are not bringing any new information to the table that we haven't discussed before, we are just discussing it with someone new. You.
We don't debate here for the end result of someone being right and someone being wrong. That's an impossibility at this point in man's knowledge. You may not believe that but as you've seen there is information from credited sources that directly conflicts with what you believe. Which is right? If you are honest you will say I don't know yet but I will tell you what I believe.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> According to Rodney Whitefield, Ph.D. -
> His conclusions -
> 
> The info -
> ...


Whitefield addressed an objection, but not the one I made in regards to yom and a number. He is right that yom with a number does not always mean a literal day. He also said there was an exception in the OT (Hosea 6:1-2). But in Hosea, it is preceded by a preposition and lacked temporal qualifiers (evening and morning). Yom, a number, qualifiers such as evening and morning, and no preposition is quite different. It does tend to mean a 24-hour day, and I (in my very little knowledge) know of no exception. If there was an exception of this, it seems it would have suited Whitefield better to use it instead of Hosea, which uses prepositions. Also, the plural for yom can be used to communicate a long period of time such as "in those days." Yet when it is used in Exodus, it appears with a number. What sense does it make to make a general and unspecific statement such as "in those days" with a number? Whitefield also does not address the matter of God being able to create quicker than six days yet taking a week as a pattern for the Israelites.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> If you think all those people get those titles because they are right then you're very mistaken. Think of all the titled people who work every day on things that are not yet proven.
> 
> If they are right and already know what exactly are they researching?


I'm not saying at all that their title means they are right. But I am saying that it is by no means easy to get these degrees or achieve the other things I mentioned. Their degree does not mean they are right, but it does mean they are not ignorant in the subject and what they have to say concerning their particular subject and/or evidence should not be dismissed simply on the basis of their belief.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 7, 2014)

Now, I might not be back until the weekend, because I've already neglected my schedule (so that's about an hour to catch up) and the rest of my schedule is pretty full. I won't even be able to see Welcome Back, Kotter because school starts tomorrow and I like sleep too much to not get nine hours of it.
Try not to write a book here on the forum while I'm gone!


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Whitefield addressed an objection, but not the one I made in regards to yom and a number. He is right that yom with a number does not always mean a literal day. He also said there was an exception in the OT (Hosea 6:1-2). But in Hosea, it is preceded by a preposition and lacked temporal qualifiers (evening and morning). Yom, a number, qualifiers such as evening and morning, and no preposition is quite different. It does tend to mean a 24-hour day, and I (in my very little knowledge) know of no exception. If there was an exception of this, it seems it would have suited Whitefield better to use it instead of Hosea, which uses prepositions. Also, the plural for yom can be used to communicate a long period of time such as "in those days." Yet when it is used in Exodus, it appears with a number. What sense does it make to make a general and unspecific statement such as "in those days" with a number? Whitefield also does not address the matter of God being able to create quicker than six days yet taking a week as a pattern for the Israelites.


Note in that article he is not the only qualified person saying it. Your questions makes sense. But that doesn't make them right.
I love Capt. D's fish. It would make sense I would love a fresh caught trout out of the river and immediately cooked. Yet I cant even swallow it without gagging on it and spitting it out it tastes so bad.
He didn't address creating quicker than six days because that has no bearing on what yom means in Hebrew.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm not saying at all that their title means they are right. But I am saying that it is by no means easy to get these degrees or achieve the other things I mentioned. Their degree does not mean they are right, but it does mean they are not ignorant in the subject and what they have to say concerning their particular subject and/or evidence should not be dismissed simply on the basis of their belief.


I agree with you.
But weeding out the same ol same ol is not dismissing their belief. But like I said that doesn't justify it 100% because there are lots of varying beliefs in Christianity. But they all still believe the Christian God is the one true god etc etc. 
How many Atheists would you need to ask about the existence of a god (any of them) before you could predict what the next Atheist is going to tell you?
Maybe not even 1 ?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Translation: "I'm too intellectually lazy to read them so I assume they are wrong instead of finding a specific claim to address."



That would be a terrible assumption on your part.
I have read those links LONG before you have posted them.
I have discussed and refuted those websites at times in here and other websites that I frequent.

There is no sense for me to go through and systematically use my resources to refute them now because everything that I have refuted WITH sources you have not replied to.
You totally disregard specific questions I have asked you.
You only reply with the same things that have already been said in those websites.
If anything I have gotten intellectually bored with all of the assertive rhetoric.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> You still have not reconciled the similarities as detailed as names and the peculiar number eight.



This world has flooded so many times that we must be under water right now.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Click on the link for the stories.

Europe

    Greek, Arcadian, Samothrace	
    Roman	
    Scandinavian, German	
    Celtic, Welsh	
    Lithuanian, Transylvanian Gypsy	
    Turkey	

Near East

    Sumerian	
    Egypt, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Hebrew, Islamic	
    Persian, Zoroastrian	

Africa

    Cameroon	
    Masai (East Africa), Komililo Nandi, Kwaya (Lake Victoria)
    Southwest Tanzania, Pygmy, Ababua (northern Zaire), Kikuyu (Kenya), Bakongo (west Zaire), Bachokwe? (southern Zaire), Lower Congo, Basonge, Bena-Lulua (Congo River, southeast Zaire)
    Yoruba (southwest Nigeria), Efik-Ibibio (Nigeria), Ekoi (Nigeria)
    Mandingo (Ivory Coast) 

Asia

    Vogul	
    Samoyed (north Siberia)
    Yenisey-Ostyak (north central Siberia), Kamchadale (northeast Siberia)
    Altaic (central Asia), Tuvinian (Soyot) (north of Mongolia)
    Mongolia, Buryat (eastern Siberia)
    Sagaiye (eastern Siberia)
    Russian	
    Hindu, Bhil (central India), Kamar (Raipur District, Central India), Assam	
    Tamil (southern India)
    Lepcha (Sikkim), Tibet, Singpho (Assam), Lushai (Assam), Lisu (northwest Yunnan, China), Lolo (southwestern China), Jino (southern Yunnan, China), Karen (Burma), Chingpaw (Upper Burma)
    China	
    Korea	
    Munda (north-central India), Santal (Bengal), Ho (southwestern Bengal)
    Bahnar (Cochin China), Kammu (northern Thailand)
    Andaman Islands (Bay of Bengal)
    Zhuang (China), Sui (southern Guizhou, China), Shan (Burma)
    Tsuwo (Formosa interior), Bunun (Formosa interior), Ami (eastern Taiwan)
    Benua-Jakun (Malay Peninsula), Kelantan (Malay Peninsula), Ifugao (Philippines), Kiangan Ifugao, Atá (Philippines), Mandaya (Philippines), Tinguian (Luzon, Philippines)
    Batak (Sumatra), Nias (an island west of Sumatra), Engano (another island west of Sumatra), Dusun (British North Borneo), Dyak (Borneo), Ot-Danom (Dutch Borneo), Toradja (central Celebes), Alfoor (between Celebes and New Guinea), Rotti (southwest of Timor), Nage (Flores) 

Australia

    Arnhem Land (northern Northern Territory)
    Maung (Goulburn Islands, Arnhem Land), Gunwinggu (northern Arnhem Land)
    Gumaidj (Arnhem Land)
    Manger (Arnhem Land)
    Fitzroy River area (Western Australia)
    Australian, Mount Elliot (coastal Queensland), Western Australia, Andingari (South Australia), Wiranggu (South Australia), Narrinyeri (South Australia), Victoria, Lake Tyres (Victoria), Kurnai (Gippsland, Victoria), southeast Australian	
    Maori (New Zealand) 

Pacific Islands

    Kabadi (New Guinea), Valman (northern New Guinea), Mamberao River (Irian Jaya), Samo-Kubo (western Papua New Guinea), Papua New Guinea	
    Palau Islands (Micronesia), western Carolines	
    New Hebrides, Lifou (one of the Loyalty Islands), Fiji	
    Samoa, Nanumanga (Tuvalu, South Pacific), Mangaia (Cook Islands), Rakaanga (Cook Islands), Raiatea (Leeward Group, French Polynesia), Tahiti, Hawaii	

North America

    Innuit, Eskimo (Orowignarak, Alaska), Norton Sound Eskimo, Central Eskimo, Tchiglit Eskimo (Arctic Ocean), Herschel Island Eskimo, Netsilik Eskimo, Greenlander	
    Tlingit (southern Alaska coast), Hareskin (Alaska), Tinneh (Alaska and south), Loucheux (Dindjie) (Alaska), Dogrib and Slave (Tinneh tribes), Kaska (northern inland British Columbia), Thompson Indians (British Columbia), Sarcee (Alberta), Tsetsaut	
    Haida (Queen Charlotte Is., British Columbia), Tsimshian (British Columbia)
    Kwakiutl (British Columbia)
    Kootenay (southeast British Columbia), Squamish (British Columbia), Bella Coola (British Columbia), Lillooet (Green River, British Columbia), Makah (Cape Flattery, Washington), Klallam (northwest Washington), Skokomish (Washington), Skagit (Washington), Quillayute (Washington), Nisqually (Washington), Twana (Puget Sound, Washington), Kathlamet	
    Cascade Mountains	
    Spokana, Nez Perce, Cayuse (eastern Washington), Yakima (Washington), Warm Springs (Oregon), Joshua (southern Oregon), Smith River (northern California coast), Wintu (north central California), Maidu (central California), Northern Miwok (central California), Tuleyome Miwok (near Clear Lake, California), Olamentko Miwok (Bodega Bay, California) Ohlone (San Francisco to Monterey, California)
    Kato (Mendocino County, California)
    Shasta (northern California interior), Pomo (north central California), Salinan (California), Yuma (western Arizona, southern California), Havasupai (lower Colorado River)
    Ashochimi (California)
    Yurok (north California coast), Blackfoot (Alberta and Montana), Cree (Canada), Timagami Ojibway (Canada), Chippewa (Ontario, Minnesota, Wisconsin), Ottawa, Menomini (Wisconsin-Michigan border), Cheyenne (Minnesota), Yellowstone, Montagnais (northern Gulf of St. Lawrence), Micmac (eastern Maritime Canada), Algonquin (upper Ottowa River), Lenape (Delaware) (Delaware to New York)
    Cherokee (Great Lakes area; eastern Tennessee)
    Mandan (North Dakota), Lakota	
    Choctaw (Mississippi), Natchez (Lower Mississippi)
    Chitimacha (Southern Louisiana)
    Caddo (Oklahoma, Arkansas), Pawnee (Nebraska)
    Navajo (Four Corners area), Jicarilla Apache (northeastern New Mexico)
    Sia (northeast Arizona)
    Acagchemem (near San Juan Capistrano, California), Luiseño (Southern California), Pima (southwest Arizona), Papago (Arizona), Hopi (northeast Arizona), Zuni (New Mexico) 

Central America

    Tarascan (northern Michoacan, Mexico), Michoacan (Mexico)
    Yaqui (Sonoran, Northern Mexico), Tarahumara (Northern Mexico), Huichol (western Mexico), Cora (east of the Huichols), Tepecano (southeast of the Huichols), Tepehua (eastern Mexico), Toltec (Mexico), Nahua (central Mexico), Tlaxcalan (central Mexico)
    Tlapanec (south central Mexico), Mixtec (northern Oaxaca, Mexico), Zapotec (Oaxaca, southern Mexico), Trique (Oaxaca, southern Mexico)
    Totonac (eastern Mexico)
    Chol (southern Mexico), Tzeltal (Chiapas, southern Mexico), Quiché (Guatemala), Maya (southern Mexico and Guatemala)
    Popoluca (Veracruz, Mexico)
    Nicaragua, Panama	
    Carib (Antilles) 

South America

    Acawai (Orinoco), Arekuna (Guyana), Makiritare (Venezuela), Macusi (British Guyana)
    Muysca (Colombia), Yaruro (southern Venezuela)
    Yanomamö (southern Venezuela)
    Tamanaque (Orinoco), Arawak (Guyana), Pamary, Abedery, and Kataushy (Purus R., Brazil), Ipurina (Upper Amazon)
    Jivaro (eastern Ecuador), Shuar (Andes)
    Murato (eastern Ecuador)
    Cañari (Quito, Ecuador)
    Guanca and Chiquito (Peru)
    Ancasmarca (near Cuzco, Peru), Canelos Quechua, Quechua, Inca (Peru), Colla (high Andes)
    Chiriguano (southeast Bolivia)
    Chorote (Eastern Paraguay)
    Eastern Brazil (Rio de Janiero region), Eastern Brazil (Cape Frio region), Caraya (Araguaia River, central Brazil), Coroado (south Brazil)
    Araucania (coastal Chile)
    Toba (northern Argentina)
    Selk'nam (southern tip of Argentina)
    Yamana (Tierra del Fuego)


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 7, 2014)

Going back a few posts and because Job mentioned "frozen seas" it means the ice age is still going on? 

Trading and traveling were around in Job's time. Not saying Job himself went that far from his homeland, but considering thousands of years before Job existed humans had left Africa and populated the globe, including crossing the Bering Straits (when the sea levels _were_ actually very low due to one of several ice ages like what we will see again in another 100,000 years or less) I'm pretty sure descriptions of different places were not unusual.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> What about the similarity of names? (Hawaiian Nu-u, Chinese Nu Wah, Lo Shen (Shem), Lo Han (Ham), and Japhu (Japheth), Sudanese Nuh). And why do many of the flood accounts only have eight people as surviving? Why not more? Why not less? Why eight? There are other similarities, but this is it for short notice.


This clears up the Chinese Flood Myth similarities
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/chinaflood.html
But if that one does not convince you, we will go with this one that includes 8 people.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html

Hawaiian flood similarities?
http://www.billstifler.org/HUM2130/files/2D-002-03-Hawaiian_flood.htm

Sudanese????
Nuh is the Noah in the Qur'an
I cannot find a specific flood story from Sudan

I am sure you will show us how you came to find the details of these incredibly similar flood stories by showing us your research OUTSIDE of posting an answersingenesis link or ICR link.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Who said science wasn't literal? I said Genesis is literal historical narrative except for prophecies. But to say the entire Bible is literal is just an ignorance of literature and context. Not even secular history books are completely literal throughout. When someone is described as a lame duck president, does that mean the president was actually a lame duck, or is lame duck a figure of speech? Parts of the Bible are literal and parts are figurative. The same goes for many texts.




You did. Science is literal. You said the bible was science. 

Ergo the Bible is literal. Moreover, you're outright saying that creationism is literal, the begats and ages are literal. 

Then you backpedal and say that it can't be lumped solely into literal or metaphorical. 

You can't have it both ways, Cochise.


----------



## Rebel 6 (Aug 8, 2014)

It cracks me up to no end when people take anything and everything the bible mentions as being literal.  Look, it is a composed, compiled and translated bunch of hoo-hah, with the latest, popular version being composed, compiled and translated under direction of a known homosexual, for the purpose of controlling people that need controlling.

And some people can never, ever see that the bible is NOT the word of (a) God.  It cannot possibly be.  Heck, I wouldn't think too much of a "God" who is lame enough to not be able to write his own book.

The...bible...is...full...of...a...bunch...of...historically...proven...facts...but...the...overall...gist...of...that...book...is...symbolism...and...metaphors...compiled...to...control...people...according...to...the...wishes...of...those...who...compiled...it.  (read...that...real...slow...people...of..."faith" ("faith" translated literally means "hope").

The great flood could not have possibly happened.  The ark could not have possibly been built.  Every single creature on this earth could not possibly be packed onto a big boat and survived after the fabled journey.  Absolutely impossible for anyone with a real brain to comprehend and believe the fable of rubish.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

Rebel 6 said:


> It cracks me up to no end when people take anything and everything the bible mentions as being literal.  Look, it is a composed, compiled and translated bunch of hoo-hah, with the latest, popular version being composed, compiled and translated under direction of a known homosexual, for the purpose of controlling people that need controlling.
> 
> And some people can never, ever see that the bible is NOT the word of (a) God.  It cannot possibly be.  Heck, I wouldn't think too much of a "God" who is lame enough to not be able to write his own book.
> 
> ...


Was your youth minister mean to you or something?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Was your youth minister mean to you or something?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 8, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> The Bible doesn't specifically say. The text seems to imply at least many came to him on their own. But he also could have hired people to bring animals to him, just as he could have hired people to help him build the ark.



How awesome is that? " thanks for stopping by guys. I appreciate your help with the ark building and animal gathering, here's a couple bucks for your time. Now, go somewhere comfy where you can drown."


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 9, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I am and I don't believe it really happened on an Ark.



Then how do you know what is meant to be literal vs allegory vs made up bologna?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You did. Science is literal. You said the bible was science.
> 
> Ergo the Bible is literal. Moreover, you're outright saying that creationism is literal, the begats and ages are literal.
> 
> ...


I may be wrong, but I don't remember saying the Bible was science. I said science confirms the Bible. Also, the begats and ages are not in every part of the Bible, but they are in Genesis, which is with some exceptions literal. But perhaps I should have clarified that the 66 books of the Bible are not one continuing genre as far as historical narrative vs figurative is concerned. I thought that was rather obvious, and if you go back in some of the posts, you will find me making statements on the importance of context. By your reasoning above, "history is literal, and history books contain history, so America has at several points in time had literal lame ducks as presidents."


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 9, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> How awesome is that? " thanks for stopping by guys. I appreciate your help with the ark building and animal gathering, here's a couple bucks for your time. Now, go somewhere comfy where you can drown."


Nowhere did I imply that the Bible says or implies that Noah would not let anyone else on the ark. In fact, the Bible calls Noah a preacher of righteousness, and it is very likely that he urged people to get on the ark. But that doesn't mean people couldn't build the ark and think Noah was crazy about a coming flood. If someone offered good pay to build a "Welcome, Bigfoot!" sign, I know many people who would accept the money and build the sign even though they don't believe Bigfoot is actually coming.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 9, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Nowhere did I imply that the Bible says or implies that Noah would not let anyone else on the ark. In fact, the Bible calls Noah a preacher of righteousness, and it is very likely that he urged people to get on the ark. But that doesn't mean people couldn't build the ark and think Noah was crazy about a coming flood. If someone offered good pay to build a "Welcome, Bigfoot!" sign, I know many people who would accept the money and build the sign even though they don't believe Bigfoot is actually coming.



How many other people were on the ark?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 9, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't remember saying the Bible was science. I said science confirms the Bible. Also, the begats and ages are not in every part of the Bible, but they are in Genesis, which is with some exceptions literal. But perhaps I should have clarified that the 66 books of the Bible are not one continuing genre as far as historical narrative vs figurative is concerned. I thought that was rather obvious, and if you go back in some of the posts, you will find me making statements on the importance of context. By your reasoning above, "history is literal, and history books contain history, so America has at several points in time had literal lame ducks as presidents."



I think the idea is that the bible is supposed to be the word of god. Therefore there should me no mistakes, contradictions, vagaries, confusions. So, how do we know which parts of the bible to take literal and which parts to take as allegory? How did you determine Noah and his kin were really hundreds of years old, but the other stuff was not to be taken as more than a good story with a valuable life lesson?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 9, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> How many other people were on the ark?


Other than Noah, the only humans on the ark were Noah's wife, Noah's sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and each son's wife. So a grand total of eight people.


> So, how do we know which parts of the bible to take literal and which parts to take as allegory? How did you determine Noah and his kin were really hundreds of years old, but the other stuff was not to be taken as more than a good story with a valuable life lesson?


Much the same way you perceive what is a literal statement and what is figurative in today's speech. Similes, metaphors, and other figurative devices naturally indicate figurative speech such as that rampant in Psalms and Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon, whatever you call it). It is typically easy to identify. Likewise, it is typically easy to tell when a passage was written with a literal or historical intended meaning. Also, different passages in Scripture indicate how other passages are to be interpreted. For example, Moses, Jesus, Paul, (practically every biblical figure who commented on the subject) took Genesis as literal history. Jesus made it clear that His parables were figurative. Interpretations of prophecies offered by Joseph and Daniel make it clear that prophecies tend to contain much symbolism and figures of speech (although some prophecies such as those predicting Josiah and Cyrus are literal, but that tends to be obvious).


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 10, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Other than Noah, the only humans on the ark were Noah's wife, Noah's sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and each son's wife. So a grand total of eight people.



So Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, L. Ron Hubbard and Snookie all got people to believe and follow them, but Noah, the "preacher of righteousness", couldn't get even one other person on that boat? Doesn't sound reasonable. I imagine an ark that big, with all of those animals on board would be quite an attraction. The worlds largest zoo. Back in the day of no radio, tv or Internet, this spectacle was surely a crowd gathering experience. And so, with all these people around and it starts to rain....a lot...nobody tries to hitch a ride? Not one single person? Doesn't sound reasonable. I know that I, for one, would think a guy was crazy if he claimed world wide flood ( I live at 1000 feet above sea level), but when the water hits my knees, I WILL start to panic. So, not 1 panicky Pete asks to get on the ship? Doesn't sound reasonable.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 10, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Much the same way you perceive what is a literal statement and what is figurative in today's speech.



Exactly, so the same way I know that we don't have a literal lame duck as a president (your apparent go to example) is the same way I interpret and reason when dealing with the bible. No talking donkeys, no 800 year old men, no excessive rain that flooded the earth an then receded to???? Etc, etc, etc.

A well written book indeed. Great opener, strong middle and an exceptional closing. Stephen King and J.K. Rowling are In awe, I am sure.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 10, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> So Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, L. Ron Hubbard and Snookie all got people to believe and follow them, but Noah, the "preacher of righteousness", couldn't get even one other person on that boat? Doesn't sound reasonable.


Why would you expect a world as wicked as that described in Noah's time to just drop everything and believe someone who pushes righteousness? They had every chance in the world to believe Noah, but they chose not to. 


> And so, with all these people around and it starts to rain....a lot...nobody tries to hitch a ride? Not one single person? Doesn't sound reasonable. I know that I, for one, would think a guy was crazy if he claimed world wide flood ( I live at 1000 feet above sea level), but when the water hits my knees, I WILL start to panic. So, not 1 panicky Pete asks to get on the ship? Doesn't sound reasonable.


By the time the Flood started, it was too late to get on the ark. Noah, his family, and the animals stayed in the ark with the door shut seven days before any water even came. The rest of humanity probably thought Noah and his family were pretty silly during those seven days. But if anyone had any real intent of acknowledging that Noah was right and that their lives needed to be saved, they would have been with Noah during those seven days... but they weren't. As far as panicking goes, many people may have thought they could survive without the ark (and they undoubtedly tried). After all, there is no reason to expect no one else on earth knew how to build a boat and had one. It's likely people got in their boats or attempted some other means of survival, but it would take a boat built for a very high level of safety to survive an event of those proportions, and it's unreasonable to expect that anyone would spend the time and resources to make a vessel of such quality for every day non-catastrophic use.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 10, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Exactly, so the same way I know that we don't have a literal lame duck as a president (your apparent go to example) is the same way I interpret and reason when dealing with the bible. No talking donkeys, no 800 year old men, no excessive rain that flooded the earth an then receded to???? Etc, etc, etc.
> 
> A well written book indeed. Great opener, strong middle and an exceptional closing. Stephen King and J.K. Rowling are In awe, I am sure.


Would you care to elaborate on your apples to oranges statement? When books refer to lame duck presidents, the phrase is written with clear figurative meaning, which is also supported by other references and surrounding context indicating that the "lame duck" in question is in fact a human being. However, everything you mentioned above from the Bible is recorded as real history with no indications of a figure of speech and is referenced by other biblical figures as literal history. To dismiss it as figurative solely on the basis of your belief that it is not plausible literally is irrelevant to the meaning intended by the writer. Intended meaning and context must be considered before plausibility ever enters the equation. One reason for this is because many things are plausible whether you believe so or not. For example, there are many architectural feats of ancient people that modern experts can't explain (such as moving solid twenty ton stones with no power equipment), but that such feats occurred is plainly evident. And I'm sure many people who had never seen or heard of any such thing or similar thing would find it quite unfeasible that some animals such as eels can give off significant amounts of electricity. But would it be reasonable for such persons to read an account on electric eels and dismiss it as figurative simply because they find such an idea unfeasible? Eminent scholars interpret biblical accounts such as those you mentioned above as literal whether they believe the accounts or not. This is true even of many agnostic and atheist scholars of the Bible who "have no dog in the fight" so to speak and reject the Bible entirely. Bottom line: the context of the account is literal historical narrative, and that interpretation is consistently held and confirmed throughout the Bible. To believe it or not is up to you, but to interpret it any way other than that intended and confirmed in the text is to be guilty of eisegesis rather than proper exegesis.
**FOR CLARIFICATION, IN NO WAY AM I CONDONING DOG FIGHTING**


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2014)

Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, L. Ron Hubbard and Snookie are all great great great great great ++ grandchildren of those people on the Ark.
Fine genetics there....darn fine.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 10, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, L. Ron Hubbard and Snookie are all great great great great great ++ grandchildren of those people on the Ark.
> Fine genetics there....darn fine.


Unless you're commenting on their physical features, you may have a pretty hard time proving your implied argument that behavior and belief are genetically inherited traits. But even for the sake of argument, that's genetic entropy for ya.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Why would you expect a world as wicked as that described in Noah's time to just drop everything and believe someone who pushes righteousness? They had every chance in the world to believe Noah, but they chose not to.
> 
> By the time the Flood started, it was too late to get on the ark. Noah, his family, and the animals stayed in the ark with the door shut seven days before any water even came. The rest of humanity probably thought Noah and his family were pretty silly during those seven days. But if anyone had any real intent of acknowledging that Noah was right and that their lives needed to be saved, they would have been with Noah during those seven days... but they weren't. As far as panicking goes, many people may have thought they could survive without the ark (and they undoubtedly tried). After all, there is no reason to expect no one else on earth knew how to build a boat and had one. It's likely people got in their boats or attempted some other means of survival, but it would take a boat built for a very high level of safety to survive an event of those proportions, and it's unreasonable to expect that anyone would spend the time and resources to make a vessel of such quality for every day non-catastrophic use.



It was probably impossible/implausible for a modern warship of the time with an experienced crew to get along side of the Ark and board it with grappling hooks and such. Especially early on before the waters got really high.

The chances of the Ark running into something very large like trees, pyramids, temples, large buildings, forts/fortresses, MOUNTAINS etc etc etc and getting smashed are impossible while the water was still relatively low in the first few hours or days.

The odds of floating around the globe for a year and ending up virtually within a stones throw of where you first launched is not a very good indication of a local flood story at all...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Unless you're commenting on their physical features, you may have a pretty hard time proving your implied argument that behavior and belief are genetically inherited traits. But even for the sake of argument, that's genetic entropy for ya.



I'd like to use your style and not prove anything...just assert as if it is fact and keep on typing, but ignore anything that might get in my way.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Unless you're commenting on their physical features, you may have a pretty hard time proving your implied argument that behavior and belief are genetically inherited traits. But even for the sake of argument, that's genetic entropy for ya.



Then again I guess dna might prove that they, you and I and probably every participant on this board is not at all, one bit, related to anyone on that Ark....
But lets not let specifics get in the way.
Continue on......

When does high school start in your county?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 10, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It was probably impossible/implausible for a modern warship of the time with an experienced crew to get along side of the Ark and board it with grappling hooks and such. Especially early on before the waters got really high.


The Bible does say violence filled the earth at that time, so war would be a very real possibility. However, if the continents were one united land mass at the time, why would anyone need a ship for war?


> The chances of the Ark running into something very large like trees, pyramids, temples, large buildings, forts/fortresses, MOUNTAINS etc etc etc and getting smashed are impossible while the water was still relatively low in the first few hours or days.


While no indication is given by Genesis either way, the ark would have launched safely and avoided all of these things if it was build on high ground.



> The odds of floating around the globe for a year and ending up virtually within a stones throw of where you first launched is not a very good indication of a local flood story at all...


What makes you say the ark landed "a stones [sic] throw of where [it] first launched"? River names? Why do you think Noah was incapable of naming geographical features after the Flood after features from before the Flood? People have often named features new to them after those with which they were familiar. The British did this with the Thames River, the Severn River, Newcastle, etc., and the people who named American cities seemed to have a fascination with the name "Farifax."


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 10, 2014)

bullethead said:


> When does high school start in your county?


My school started this past Friday.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> By the time the Flood started, it was too late to get on the ark. Noah, his family, and the animals stayed in the ark with the door shut seven days before any water even came. The rest of humanity probably thought Noah and his family were pretty silly during those seven days. But if anyone had any real intent of acknowledging that Noah was right and that their lives needed to be saved, they would have been with Noah during those seven days... but they weren't. As far as panicking goes, many people may have thought they could survive without the ark (and they undoubtedly tried). After all, there is no reason to expect no one else on earth knew how to build a boat and had one. It's likely people got in their boats or attempted some other means of survival, but it would take a boat built for a very high level of safety to survive an event of those proportions, and it's unreasonable to expect that anyone would spend the time and resources to make a vessel of such quality for every day non-catastrophic use.


Lets use our brains, common sense and examples of what has happened in our history.
Noah was given specific instructions of who and what was to be on the Ark. That did not include anybody who thought he was silly or a genius or any of the other possibilities you proposed. He shut the doors 7 days before for that reason. Based on what we have seen in past catastrophes the most probable happening was as the water was rising people wanted on that boat. They were screaming, begging and pleading, mothers were holding babies up begging for them to be saved and were ignored.
That makes Noah an accomplice to mass murder not righteous.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 10, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, L. Ron Hubbard and Snookie are all great great great great great ++ grandchildren of those people on the Ark.
> Fine genetics there....darn fine.



Yeah, God might want to file that under "lessons learned" and tweak it a little next time he almost destroys the world.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets use our brains, common sense and examples of what has happened in our history.
> Noah was given specific instructions of who and what was to be on the Ark. That did not include anybody who thought he was silly or a genius or any of the other possibilities you proposed. He shut the doors 7 days before for that reason. Based on what we have seen in past catastrophes the most probable happening was as the water was rising people wanted on that boat. They were screaming, begging and pleading, mothers were holding babies up begging for them to be saved and were ignored.
> That makes Noah an accomplice to mass murder not righteous.



Thank you. Hence my earlier statement that he sent them away to drown.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 10, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> However, everything you mentioned above from the Bible is recorded as real history



Refresh my memory. Recorded by whom? Who was it that was on site and writing down the events of the flood? Where are these tablets?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> The Bible does say violence filled the earth at that time, so war would be a very real possibility. However, if the continents were one united land mass at the time, why would anyone need a ship for war?


The continents were not one united land mass at the time.
I am not sure the Bible mentions Pangea.

I would tend to think that the size of the rivers and lakes...not to mention the SEAS of the time...were big enough for humans to have already built ships to navigate them.

So then what year was the flood?


> Chapter 5 we read in verse 3, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:" (Genesis 5:3). So far we have 130 years from the creation of the world. In verse 6 we read: "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:" (Genesis 5:6). Now we are in the year 235 (130 for Adam and 105 for Seth).
> 
> In verse 9 we read: "And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:" (Genesis 5:9). This makes the year 325 (235 years plus 90 years). In verse 12 we read: "And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:" (Genesis 5:12). This adds up to 395 since Creation (325 plus 70). In verse 15 we read: "And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:" (Genesis 5:15). Now we have 460 years since Creation.
> 
> ...



But...



> The region of As-Sabiyah in what is now Kuwait is the home of nearly sixty archaeological sites belonging the Mesopotamian period. Of most interest is a Ubaid period site at As-Sabiyah, known as H3. Excavated in 1998 by a group led by Harriet Crawford under the auspices of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, H3 was found to be a well-stratified, architecturally complex and artifact-rich site belonging to the Arabian Neolithic period.
> 
> Most remarkable, the site included the remains of a reed boat, as well as a ceramic model of a boat. The boat is represented by a slab of bitumen tar, with reed impressions on the top and barnacles attached to the bottom. H3 is thus one of the earliest known examples of built sailing vessels, dated between 5300–4900 BC.
> 
> ...


and


> World's Oldest Ship?? 	Volume 50 Number 4, July/August 1997
> by Angela M.H. Schuster
> 
> Divers have found timbers they believe to be remains of the world's oldest known ship off Hayling Island near Portsmouth, England. Radiocarbon dated to 6,431 years ago, the timbers were discovered in 30 feet of water by a team led by British sport diver Don Boullivant. "We have been searching the area for quite some time, looking for Roman wrecks," says Boullivant. "When we came across the worked oak timbers, we were certain that we had finally found one. To our great surprise the wood is older by 4,000 years."
> ...









Bassquatch328 said:


> While no indication is given by Genesis either way, the ark would have launched safely and avoided all of these things if it was build on high ground.


If no indication is given then what are you basing this off of?
Was the Ark launched from a place higher than Everest?




Bassquatch328 said:


> What makes you say the ark landed "a stones [sic] throw of where [it] first launched"? River names? Why do you think Noah was incapable of naming geographical features after the Flood after features from before the Flood? People have often named features new to them after those with which they were familiar. The British did this with the Thames River, the Severn River, Newcastle, etc., and the people who named American cities seemed to have a fascination with the name "Farifax."



Where was Noah from?
Where was the Ark built and launch from?
Where does the Bible say the Ark landed?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2014)

From: http://www.sott.net/article/238117-Evidence-Found-Of-Ancient-Deep-Sea-Fishing-By-Humans
.....and rest of article can be found with the link

An Australian archaeologist has discovered ancient fish bones in a cave in East Timor - a small island country northeast of Australia in the Lesser Sunda Islands - that contain the ancient remains of more than 38,000 fish bones from nearly 2,900 individual fish, a sign that humans may have gone deep-sea fishing as many as 42,000 years ago.

Among the fish bones were those of tuna and shark, clearly brought to the cave - called Jerimalai - by human hands. And to back that up, the archaeologist also unearthed a fish hook dating to 23,000 years old.

The discovery, reported online in the journal Science, provides the strongest evidence yet that people were deep-sea fishing long ago. And those maritime skills may have allowed the inhabitants of this region to travel abroad and colonize other islands and continents.

Human consumption of fish dates back around 1.9 million years. Early fishers waded into lakes and streams and caught fish without the use of boats or complex tools. It wasn't until later that humans began fishing the deep seas.

The earliest known boats, found in France and the Netherlands, date back only 10,000 years, but archaeologists know that boats must have been used prior to this. Wood and other common boat-building materials do not preserve well, making it harder to find more ancient proof. But. With the colonization of Australia and nearby islands in Southeast Asia occurring at least 45,000 years ago, sea travel of at least 16 miles would have been required.

Modern humans had been utilizing near-shore resources - mussels, abalone, etc.. - as early as 165,000 years ago, but direct evidence of early seafaring skills has eluded scientists and archaeologists for ages. A few controversial sites have suggested that our early ancestors had fished deep waters 45,000 years ago, but the earliest sure sites are only about 12,000 years old.

But the new find, discovered by Susan O'Connor, an archaeologist at the Australian National University in Canberra, may prove that our human ancestors did ply the deep-sea waters long before we had previously believed.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> What makes you say the ark landed "a stones [sic] throw of where [it] first launched"? River names? Why do you think Noah was incapable of naming geographical features after the Flood after features from before the Flood? People have often named features new to them after those with which they were familiar. The British did this with the Thames River, the Severn River, Newcastle, etc., and the people who named American cities seemed to have a fascination with the name "Farifax."



Pertaining to parts in Red...



Do you just throw in extra things so you can make a valid point about them in order to try to lend credibility to the things that are not valid and HOPE that no one notices that NOBODY asked you about rivers or naming geographical features??

This is what you quoted me as saying:


> The odds of floating around the globe for a year and ending up virtually within a stones throw of where you first launched is not a very good indication of a local flood story at all...


 
And above in Red is your reply.

What in Nogods name are you talking about?...or did you go too far on a copy/paste??


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Pertaining to parts in Red...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I typed up the parts in red because that was my only guess as to why you would say the ark landed "a stone's throw away" from the original launching site. River names are the common basis people use for making this claim, so if this isn't your basis, I have no clue what is until you give an indication.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> I typed up the parts in red because that was my only guess as to why you would say the ark landed "a stone's throw away" from the original launching site. River names are the common basis people use for making this claim, so if this isn't your basis, I have no clue what is until you give an indication.



Where was Noah from?
Where was the Ark built and launched from?
Where does the Bible say the Ark landed?


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 12, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Where was Noah from?


Unknown


> Where was the Ark built and launched from?


 Obvious answer: whatever site Noah chose. Specific answer: Unknown


> Where does the Bible say the Ark landed?


The mountains of Ararat, with the specific site being... unknown.
So I really don't know what basis you have for saying the ark landed "a stone's throw away" from where it was launched.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2014)

Someone as myself can see that God, the Great Scientist, can use science in creation, and eradication. Eradication of the whole earth or just a small area.
Regardless of what was flooded God established a covenant that he wouldn't us a flood to destroy the earth. After giving this covenant he established his rainbow in the sky as a sign of his covenant.

My question is, did God use science to give us this sign, the rainbow? If not is it therefore wrong for Christians to use science to explain it? Why is it OK to use science to explain some of God's works but not all of God's works?
How do we as Christians determine what we get to use science to explain?
Remember what the rainbow really is and who placed it in the sky.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Who said science wasn't literal? I said Genesis is literal historical narrative except for prophecies. But to say the entire Bible is literal is just an ignorance of literature and context. Not even secular history books are completely literal throughout. When someone is described as a lame duck president, does that mean the president was actually a lame duck, or is lame duck a figure of speech? Parts of the Bible are literal and parts are figurative. The same goes for many texts.



I agree parts of the Bible are literal and parts are not. I differ from most Christians about God using science as his means of creation and sustaining life.
What did you mean about the prophecies in Genesis? That they aren't a part of the historical narrative?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> Unknown
> Obvious answer: whatever site Noah chose. Specific answer: Unknown
> 
> The mountains of Ararat, with the specific site being... unknown.
> So I really don't know what basis you have for saying the ark landed "a stone's throw away" from where it was launched.



Could I be right?
Especially when you say so much is unknown.
Noah was obviously from the region according to the Bible...and he ended up within the region according to the Bible. The story and places are within the Middle East. The story afterwards continues in the Middle East. 
So....it is a stones throw compared to the all of land available all over the rest of the planet that the ark could have come to rest.

You have a knack for accepting the unknown when it suits you.
You say nobody witnessed a star 10 million years ago yet hang every word on things that no one witnessed in the Bible.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> What did you mean about the prophecies in Genesis? That they aren't a part of the historical narrative?


I mean that the prophecies were literally made (that part is historical narrative), but when the prophecies themselves are interpreted, they contain much symbolism and figurative language. For example, Joseph literally dreamed that his brothers' sheaves would bow down to his sheaf and that the sun and moon and eleven stars bowed down to him, but those things which were described in the dreams did not literally occur in the real world. The dreams were symbolic of Joseph's brothers and Jacob and his house relying on Joseph as the practical ruler of Egypt. 
However, prophecies in general cannot be their own category of literal or figurative, because they vary. Joseph's dreams I mentioned above were symbolic and figurative, but other OT prophecies about Cyrus the Persian and King Josiah of Judah were literal.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> My question is, did God use science to give us this sign, the rainbow? If not is it therefore wrong for Christians to use science to explain it? Why is it OK to use science to explain some of God's works but not all of God's works?
> How do we as Christians determine what we get to use science to explain?
> Remember what the rainbow really is and who placed it in the sky.


It's important to remember that when we say God used science, we should not be saying it as if it were some pre-existing thing that God didn't establish. (When I say God used science, I refer to natural laws and processes; not necessarily ideas held by scientists). Since God established natural laws and processes, He can suspend them whenever He wants (though He tends to do so in an isolated fashion). There are biblical events that are specifically stated as miraculous (which would be a suspension of these laws and processes), and other events are described as taking place in a manner completely within the confines of natural laws. But there are some events that are a little harder to determine as far as natural or miraculous. I would say that in these cases it would be better not to assume a miraculous occurrence if the Bible gives no such implication.
As far as the rainbow goes, it's debated as to whether that was the first time any rainbow existed or rainbows had existed since creation and had simply been given a new significance after the Flood. I would go with the latter as rainbows do appear through natural processes and it would take peculiar atmospheric conditions not necessarily gathered from the Bible to prevent pre-Flood rainbows.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 13, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Could I be right?
> Especially when you say so much is unknown.
> Noah was obviously from the region according to the Bible...and he ended up within the region according to the Bible. The story and places are within the Middle East. The story afterwards continues in the Middle East.
> So....it is a stones throw compared to the all of land available all over the rest of the planet that the ark could have come to rest.


So you are indulging in an unsubstantiated claim supporting arbitrary circular reasoning?
You said Noah was "obviously" from the Middle East, but you gave no reason for why this idea is so "obviously" gathered from Scripture. Without justifying this point, your statement boils down to, "The ark landed a stone's throw from where it launched because it launched from the same region in which it landed." You can justify your statement about the region in which the ark landed, but you have simply stated the ark was launched from the same region with no substantiation that that was so. 



> You say nobody witnessed a star 10 million years ago yet hang every word on things that no one witnessed in the Bible.


Star birth cannot be observed even in principle. That is, if it were true, it could not be observed by people. And such and the idea is held primarily because of its necessity to an epistemologically failing system. The Bible, however, makes every claim of an always honest Eyewitness to every event. So the only way to prove events which we could not witness did not happen would be to disprove the existence of the One who witnessed them. To do that, you would have to find a non-biblical worldview that makes knowledge possible, because you couldn't disprove anything if you couldn't know anything, and to use concepts from the biblical worldview in an attempt to disprove the Bible is inconsistent and self-defeating.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> So you are indulging in an unsubstantiated claim supporting arbitrary circular reasoning?
> You said Noah was "obviously" from the Middle East, but you gave no reason for why this idea is so "obviously" gathered from Scripture. Without justifying this point, your statement boils down to, "The ark landed a stone's throw from where it launched because it launched from the same region in which it landed." You can justify your statement about the region in which the ark landed, but you have simply stated the ark was launched from the same region with no substantiation that that was so.



Oh I HAVE to indulge in unsubstantiated claims and circular reasoning because that is exactly what the Bible consists of. 
You let on like you know your Bible so I would hope you know the parts written about Noah.
Either you are playing possum or you do not know your scripture and are having a hard time finding a copy/paste to help you out.
If anything I have said does not match up with the Bible please show me where I am wrong(using scripture) and show me the correct scripture.
Where was Noah from?
Where did the Ark launch from?
Where did it land?



Bassquatch328 said:


> Star birth cannot be observed even in principle. That is, if it were true, it could not be observed by people. And such and the idea is held primarily because of its necessity to an epistemologically failing system. The Bible, however, makes every claim of an always honest Eyewitness to every event. So the only way to prove events which we could not witness did not happen would be to disprove the existence of the One who witnessed them. To do that, you would have to find a non-biblical worldview that makes knowledge possible, because you couldn't disprove anything if you couldn't know anything, and to use concepts from the biblical worldview in an attempt to disprove the Bible is inconsistent and self-defeating.



Tell me exactly which author witnessed the conversation between the Roman tomb guards and the Jewish Rabbis?

WHO was an eyewitness to the conversation between Jesus and Satan?



Your worldview nonsense is getting old.
Maybe I am an anomaly but here I am, I exist, I am knowledgeable and I did not get it from your God. I have posted a rebuttal to your worldview nonsense and as with anything that directly refutes your assertions...you ignored it with an answer and just keep posting the same busted rants.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 13, 2014)

> Oh I HAVE to indulge in unsubstantiated claims and circular reasoning because that is exactly what the Bible consists of.
> You let on like you know your Bible so I would hope you know the parts written about Noah.
> Either you are playing possum or you do not know your scripture and are having a hard time finding a copy/paste to help you out.
> If anything I have said does not match up with the Bible please show me where I am wrong(using scripture) and show me the correct scripture.
> ...


First, I'm starting to think you don't know what an unsubstantiated claim is. Second, the statement that you have to use fallacious reasoning because something/someone else does does not follow logically. Thirdly, plagiarism is a serious charge, so unless you want to continue to engage in fraudulent and unfounded accusations regarding the topic, you would do well to actually check to see if something is copied and pasted before you make the claim that it is. That sort of verification is really quite easy.
I have already answered the three questions regarding Noah and locations. To just ignore those answers does not make them go away. To the first two questions, I said the answer is unknown. However, you seem so certain that the answers are given and that the ark was launched from the same region in which it landed. If you are right and I am wrong, it should be no problem for you to substantiate your claim. You have yet to do so.


> Tell me exactly which author witnessed the conversation between the Roman tomb guards and the Jewish Rabbis?


Well, the guards certainly witnessed it, as did the Jewish leaders. Anyone from either of these groups could have given this detail to Matthew (who mentioned it) and anyone else. This isn't specifically stated, but it is entirely possible considering many Roman soldiers became Christians and there were at least two Christians in the Jewish ruling class. 


> WHO was an eyewitness to the conversation between Jesus and Satan?


Well, Jesus certainly was, and it is entirely possible Jesus told His disciples.
Just because a specific witness to event is not named in a text does not mean there was no witness who reliably delivered information. 


> Your worldview nonsense is getting old.
> Maybe I am an anomaly but here I am, I exist, I am knowledgeable and I did not get it from your God. I have posted a rebuttal to your worldview nonsense and as with anything that directly refutes your assertions...you ignored it with an answer and just keep posting the same busted rants.


How do you know you exist? You have not made justification for this belief, nor have you refuted (that I've seen) the argument I presented. You said you "posted a rebuttal." If it was a link, I apparently missed it. Post it again if you want. But if you are going to just continue to make non-arguments, then there is no point in continuing discussion.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2014)

Bassquatch328 said:


> First, I'm starting to think you don't know what an unsubstantiated claim is. Second, the statement that you have to use fallacious reasoning because something/someone else does does not follow logically. Thirdly, plagiarism is a serious charge, so unless you want to continue to engage in fraudulent and unfounded accusations regarding the topic, you would do well to actually check to see if something is copied and pasted before you make the claim that it is. That sort of verification is really quite easy.


I didn't say plagiarism but you are utilizing the answers in genesis and ICR websites to the hilt.
I have specifically given you questions in order to see if the answers are coming from your heart or if you are using those websites. While not word for word, your thoughts go as their thoughts go with many sentences following each other in very similar fashion.



Bassquatch328 said:


> I have already answered the three questions regarding Noah and locations. To just ignore those answers does not make them go away. To the first two questions, I said the answer is unknown. However, you seem so certain that the answers are given and that the ark was launched from the same region in which it landed. If you are right and I am wrong, it should be no problem for you to substantiate your claim. You have yet to do so.


I am giving you every opportunity to use the same leeway that you do in the examples below with the guards and Jesus. You are taking information and giving a possible scenario that MIGHT fit that explanation.
In this case with Noah you are just unable to figure out a  area in the world where he lived and built the Ark...despite the Bible giving locations for his family before him and after him. 
Odds are Noah lived near The Garden of Eden...possibly Nod or Ur....he was but a few generations after Adam...10 maybe? He seemed to have spent his whole life in that region so it makes sense that the boat was built there too. He ended up on Mt. Ararat.
(All this according to the Bible...which in history localized flooding has been proven in those areas but not worldwide.)



Bassquatch328 said:


> Well, the guards certainly witnessed it, as did the Jewish leaders. Anyone from either of these groups could have given this detail to Matthew (who mentioned it) and anyone else. This isn't specifically stated, but it is entirely possible considering many Roman soldiers became Christians and there were at least two Christians in the Jewish ruling class.


You obviously have no understanding about how the Roman army assigned a guard detail. Do not feel bad, neither did the anonymous authors of the Gospels.

Keep the words in Red in mind though...I'm getting to them below.



Bassquatch328 said:


> Well, Jesus certainly was, and it is entirely possible Jesus told His disciples.
> Just because a specific witness to event is not named in a text does not mean there was no witness who reliably delivered information.


If these are good enough as some sort of "proof" for your replies then I will go with ..
It is "entirely possible" that Noah "could" have lived, built the Ark and landed the Ark all within a small distance within the Middle East (near Turkey and Iran). And it is "entirely possible" that the Noah/Ark story "could" have been a very localized event. Just like the flood stories in other cultures where large rivers existed where flooding has occurred.



Bassquatch328 said:


> How do you know you exist? You have not made justification for this belief, nor have you refuted (that I've seen) the argument I presented. You said you "posted a rebuttal." If it was a link, I apparently missed it. Post it again if you want. But if you are going to just continue to make non-arguments, then there is no point in continuing discussion.



I type therefore I am.
You seem to miss a lot.


----------



## Bassquatch328 (Aug 14, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I didn't say plagiarism but you are utilizing the answers in genesis and ICR websites to the hilt.
> I have specifically given you questions in order to see if the answers are coming from your heart or if you are using those websites. While not word for word, your thoughts go as their thoughts go with many sentences following each other in very similar fashion.


Then don't say copy and paste. Even something with as negative a connotation as "regurgitate" would be better than copy and paste, but to say someone has simply copied and pasted with no verification is just not correct or ethical. I do use resources from ministries such as AiG and ICR often, but I do evaluate as much as I can. There may be errors in technical papers that I miss just because I'm not qualified in the area. But with subjects that are not particularly technical, especially those dealing with biblical content, it's pretty easy to make a critical decision of their argument. But me finding no problem with their argument and using it is quite different from just blindly accepting anything they say. If you want to say I just parrot their arguments, I could just as easily say you parrot secular arguments. 


> I am giving you every opportunity to use the same leeway that you do in the examples below with the guards and Jesus. You are taking information and giving a possible scenario that MIGHT fit that explanation.
> In this case with Noah you are just unable to figure out a  area in the world where he lived and built the Ark...despite the Bible giving locations for his family before him and after him.


The Bible gives geographical reference for the Garden of Eden, and it mentions other places such as the land of Nod. But nowhere does it say how far humanity had dispersed by Noah's time (although probably not very far) or where Noah lived.


> Odds are Noah lived near The Garden of Eden...possibly Nod or Ur....he was but a few generations after Adam...10 maybe? He seemed to have spent his whole life in that region so it makes sense that the boat was built there too. He ended up on Mt. Ararat.
> (All this according to the Bible...which in history localized flooding has been proven in those areas but not worldwide.)


Noah could have lived in Nod, but probably not considering Nod was inhabited by Cain's family and Noah was from the line of Seth. Nowhere is the land of Ur mentioned pre-Flood. Neither does the Bible mention details of Noah's life except his birth, role in the Flood, and some aspects of his post-Flood life. He did end up in the mountains of Ararat (no specific mountain is mentioned). But the biblical Flood was clearly global, as indicated by God's promise that He would not again flood the earth as He had done (we have local floods all the time), mention of the waters covering the mountains, Babel, later biblical references to the Flood applying to the world, etc. Whether you believe the Flood happened or not is another story, but to say the Flood described in the Bible was local is simply not supported by the text. While it is not proven scientifically, neither is the prevailing secular model of geology. Unless scientists invent a time machine (which is impossible just because of the logical problems it would entail) to go back and observe the past, we can't prove hypotheses about events no one alive today could observe. These ideas can only be supported at best, and even that is not completely objective because everyone must make certain assumptions. However, the current Flood model does have explanatory power even though I would not say it is without flaws.


> You obviously have no understanding about how the Roman army assigned a guard detail. Do not feel bad, neither did the anonymous authors of the Gospels.


I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you referring to how guards were chosen, how they were placed, what? Please clarify and list a source. If you are referring to the ridiculousness of the excuse that they fell asleep, then I was aware, and so was Matthew (the fact that the guards would be in danger if Pilate heard they slept while on duty is mentioned). However, the guards were under the direction of the Sanhedrin, which was told that it would be responsible for security. Furthermore, the Bible doesn't say the guards would actually be safe from execution if they said they were sleeping. If the Sanhedrin came up with a lame excuse and said they would handle it, whose fault is that?



> If these are good enough as some sort of "proof" for your replies then I will go with ..
> It is "entirely possible" that Noah "could" have lived, built the Ark and landed the Ark all within a small distance within the Middle East (near Turkey and Iran). And it is "entirely possible" that the Noah/Ark story "could" have been a very localized event. Just like the flood stories in other cultures where large rivers existed where flooding has occurred.


I agree that it is entirely possible Noah lived in the region that would afterward be called the Middle East (even though the odds are astronomical). But there is a major difference between saying something _could be so_ because of a lack of details and saying as a matter of fact that something _was so_ (as you have done) in spite of a lack of details. Regarding the Flood described in the Bible being local, see my previous response in this post.



> I type therefore I am.
> You seem to miss a lot.


"I type" does not give any reason for why "I am" should be true, since "I type" already assumes "I am" is true. "I am" is a statement that involves more presuppositions than "I type" justifies.
And of course I miss a lot. I only have about an hour of free time. The other four hours I have to be both home and awake are devoted to studying, daily necessities, and family time.


----------

