Noah's descendants were not cavemen and I doubt they were carrying clubs and dragging women by their hair. They repopulated the world and created nations. This is conjecture on my part, but in the early days after the flood, the peoples were nomadic and searched for land to till and in effect had large families to farm the lands, grow crops, hunt, feed livestock, etc.
There is plenty of proof for a lot of water all over the world 5000 years ago. That is not a mistake. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it is not true. Jesus loves you to, even liberals.
todays huck finn wrote:
The argument put up by Rational Faith is so moronic I'm just going to leave it at that. One non-argument deserves another.
It's easy to see that Noah's Ark didn't happen as described in the Bible. No species is going to survive the inbreeding that comes from being reduced to a population of seven, let alone two. Even if they did, that kind of genetic bottleneck would be obvious in the genetic similarity of all members of the species today. That doesn't show up.
When Adam was created, he was created perfect in every sense of the word. intelligence, no diseases, no sickness, no head colds, no heart disease, no cancer, etc. In fact if you believe the Bible, Adam had he not sinned, would have been immortal. Despite the his fall and sin, he still lived to be 930 years old. Let's fast forward to Noah, he lived to be 950 years or so. Are so moronic to assume that the human race had all the genetic defects that we have today?
There is proof that TODAY'S world is 70% water. That's a lot of water. This is not a mistake, Google it.
I'm part Asian and Native American (South America). I never realized I was a direct descendant of Noah.
That is correct the world is ONLY 70% water. Noah's flood is impossible because there is not enough water on earth to cover all of the land!
70% water wrote:
There is proof that TODAY'S world is 70% water. That's a lot of water. This is not a mistake, Google it.
"Adam is said to be perfect until he recognizes either his sin or Cain's homicide that is the cause of bringing death into the world. He then separates from holy Eve, sleeps alone, and fasts for 130 years. During this time Lilith, also known as Pizna or Naamah, desired his beauty and came to him against his will. She bore him many demons and spirits called 'the plagues of humankind'."
Adam fasted for 130 years? Where did Lilith come from? Was she Adam's daughter, or his granddaughter? Adam only had Cain and Able. Cain killed Able.
The story of Adam would make for great reality TV show, and great gossip rag fodder.
Rational Faith wrote:
Noah's descendants were not cavemen and I doubt they were carrying clubs and dragging women by their hair. They repopulated the world and created nations. This is conjecture on my part, but in the early days after the flood, the peoples were nomadic and searched for land to till and in effect had large families to farm the lands, grow crops, hunt, feed livestock, etc.
Like I said...it seems you have very little understanding of ancient farming techniques.
Your entire theory is based off of an unlimited food supply. In ancient times even one drought could wipe out half the population in a given year. This is well documented in the Mesopotamian region. Entire towns were abandoned because of droughts and just simple changes in the rivers flow.
It is also based off of the idea that every man and women can and would reproduce nonstop for their entire lives, which is false and if you even looked at that thought for a second you would realize how stupid it was. Once again without the right amount of food a woman cannot reproduce in large numbers successfully. They can get pregnant but the baby will not come to term or if she does give birth the baby will be so weak, allot of the time, it will not survive into adulthood.
Look up farming techniques around 4000 BC. Find out how large the largest cities were at that time and you will begin to understand how your population growth theory would not work with reality.
The technology for food production was not there for large cities to keep up with fast population growths like you described. Ask yourself why it took so long for a city to reach over a million people (Rome). Also, ask yourself why it took another 1000 years for any other city to reach a million. Because it took thousands of years to develop the transportation systems and agriculturally systems to support such a large city.
Go out into your own back yard and try to grow enough food to support yourself without any machines. YOU CAN"T DO IT because it is way way to hard for us modern people to do.
your argument is a very old argument and there is a reason that few historians actually support it. It has a thousand holes in it.
Without a surplus of food, there will be no increase in the population. Nomadic populations rarely had a surplus of food thus their populations levels were kept pretty low. It wasn't till man started to settle down and farm that the populations start to increase but they did not increase fast because the technology was not there.
I think Eden was a type of Bio-dome garden. Adam left the dome and got into trouble, he was not supposed to leave. Outside the dome other people lived, and had lived for a very long time. Outside is where Cain found a woman. That's where Adam found Lilith.
Praise Jesus! First they kick the illegal Mexicans out of Arizona, now we find the Ark! He is truly great!
Moes Tavern wrote:
Funny how people will accept something in history based on less proof than when it comes to Biblical things.
I think this sums up the thread well.
If Noah's Ark had nothing to do with the Bible, everyone on this board would believe the story.
But, because believing this story would lend validation to the Bible, they search for reasons to discredit it.
950 year old Noah. Cain fathered children yet had no wife.
Sorry, Cain didn't need a wife, just a willing woman.
950 year old Noah wrote:
Sorry, Cain didn't need a wife, just a willing woman.
No Caine banged Eden...
then he banged her in the A
heytheredelilah wrote:
Moes Tavern wrote:Funny how people will accept something in history based on less proof than when it comes to Biblical things.
I think this sums up the thread well.
If Noah's Ark had nothing to do with the Bible, everyone on this board would believe the story.
But, because believing this story would lend validation to the Bible, they search for reasons to discredit it.
Do you believe in the book of Morman?
A lot of what is said in the book of Morman can be backed up by historical evidence. Must mean it is 100% true right?
Hopefully you get the point.
Just because a book is old doesn't make it 100% true. Use it as an historical referance but like any ancient bronze age book take it on face value only and learn to understand fact from fiction. Understand that the people who wrote these old books did not have a very large understanding of the how the world worked and they thought their small world of a few hundred square miles was it.
I don't believe in the Iliad any more than I believe in the Bible. Even though at times both books were looked upon as 100% fact. Both books have historically acurate points in them but most people view the Iliad as just a story why is the Bible treated any differantly?
heytheredelilah wrote:
If Noah's Ark had nothing to do with the Bible, everyone on this board would believe the story.
But, because believing this story would lend validation to the Bible, they search for reasons to discredit it.
Let me reword that for you and hopefully you'll understand what a stupid, stupid thing you just wrote.
"If the story of God telling Noah to build and ark had nothing to do with religion, everyone on this board would believe the story"
I hope you see the problem with that statement and retract it immediately.
Another thing to keep in mind is that women had a tremendously high rate of death during child birth. Just about every woman you know who's had a cesarean section? Dead. Also life span was 40 max. And women couldn't exactly pop out babies because every time you gave birth there was a large possibility of death.
There's lots of indirect proof for macroevolution (of course we can't directly show huge evolution because we don't have millions of years to observe), like the problem of chromosomes in humans and apes. Apes all have 24 chromosomes, while humans only have 23. How could we be related if we're missing a whole chromosome? Well, it turns out that one of our chromosomes is actually two of the ape chromosomes joined
together!
It is worth considering how much the naysayers on this board want the story of Noah's Ark to be untrue. How much of their convictions are motivated by a sort of childish glee at the prospect of debunking biblical stories?
The catastrophic deluge that nearly destroyed humankind is remembered every year on the Day of the Dead, or Halloween. How many of the hypocritical naysayers pay homage to this day?
Man in Black wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is that women had a tremendously high rate of death during child birth. Just about every woman you know who's had a cesarean section? Dead. Also life span was 40 max. And women couldn't exactly pop out babies because every time you gave birth there was a large possibility of death.
There's lots of indirect proof for macroevolution (of course we can't directly show huge evolution because we don't have millions of years to observe), like the problem of chromosomes in humans and apes. Apes all have 24 chromosomes, while humans only have 23. How could we be related if we're missing a whole chromosome? Well, it turns out that one of our chromosomes is actually two of the ape chromosomes joined
together!
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Great point...
I wasn't even thinking along those lines.
but Modern technology keeps a lot of women a live during child birth that would have normally died as early as 100 years ago.
Just look at the Child death rate as early as 1950 and you'll see what modern technology has done to population growth.
hypocrites all of you wrote:
It is worth considering how much the naysayers on this board want the story of Noah's Ark to be untrue. How much of their convictions are motivated by a sort of childish glee at the prospect of debunking biblical stories?
The catastrophic deluge that nearly destroyed humankind is remembered every year on the Day of the Dead, or Halloween. How many of the hypocritical naysayers pay homage to this day?
What does this have to do with anything...
Once again provide proof....
the current story linked by the OP has already been proved as a lie by the only true archeologist in the party.
Provide your own proof so it can be analyzied.
For the record I celebrate the day of the dead like any other fake holiday......... just for fun. :-)