What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where does everyone stand in regards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #641
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]coincidence?

yes theres no way that they could have had contact, yiur refering to a speculated theory. The time frame is also skewed, the mya began making pyramids hundreds of years after the egyptions stopped their pyramid building. the myan culture wasnt around then, what was it the Obticans or something? To cross the atlantic, not to mention the pacific ocean in that direction would requier advanced seafaring knowledge. it took columbus a long time and a difficult journy to reach the west indies, yet comong back was a breze. why? currents, circumpolar crrents. To cross directly from the east to the west atlantic from egypt to the americas would mean that youd be fighting the gulf stream current almost all the way... The canary current can only get you so far out to seas (actualy to goes southwest) before your swept eastward and north by the gulf stream. It is certainly feasable that they were swept by them instead of fighting them, but, would their boats even survive the journy? The triangle of currents that criss cross the atlantic were known by slavetraders, and they thus made mucth money quikly by exploiting them later, but ... the egyptans and mya were agricultural societys and the seas witch boarderd their empires (part of their empire in the myan case) did not have any sunstanttal currents, so they would have had no knowledge of currents, and definantly no knowledge of atlantic currents, so cross-atlantic journeys would have been very slow and difficult for their prmitive boat tecnology. Secondly, egyption boats were primarily for river and sea travelk and would have fared very poorly in the open ocean due their desing.

To go from central america to the meddeteranin also proves very difficult, because to go directly east would put you directly against the canary curent. Following the gulf stream is would be the only way for these primitive boats to get to the old world.woyld sweep you north to the british iles,
world11.gif


from where youd have to head south and penetrate the meddeteranian sea far enough to reach egypt.

It is certainly doable, and eventually you would reatch the opposite shore by drifting with the currents, but we dont think they would have even gotten that far. food water and time, and their boats definatly didnt move that fast. As for the chinese, it is also feasable but unlikely. you could in theory island hop and hug the coastline but thats still a very long ditance. all the way across from the pacific.

thy myan rout to china to china is slightly more feasible, but its mostly open ocean that way and the chance of hitting a scatterd small island slight, they would have shurly died from lack of water and exposure before they made it across (myans = minimum clothing)

a land rout across asia would be very difficult, with mountains and deserts to cross
 
  • #642
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 08 2005,12:13)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]that's because scientifically the great flood is IMPOSSIBLE. You can only believe the great flood if you believe that god twisted natural laws.

Well duh God twisted natural laws - otherwise we wouldn't be talking about creationism at all. God made rain fall from the sky and come out of the ground in large enough quantities to cover the earth. I'm quite aware of the fact that this did not happen naturally.

As for the population factor, yes, I know natural disasters and wars and all that wipe out huge numbers of people. If we had a population growth of only 0.2% a year, after 10,000 years, the population would grow from 2 to 951141889. That's almost a billion from just two people with a very high mortality rate.

It's not just Christians who beleive in the Flood. Almost every single culture in the world has stories of a great flood that covered the earth. Coincidence?

Peter
OK god broke natures, fine he produced some water. The the fact that the boat built was impossible to built and given the circumstances even if they COULD of fit a male and female of every species of EVERYTHING (which they couldn't) they wouldn't have the resources or could possibly FIND all the animals to put into that ark. The ark, physically, is impossible to build NOW with all the technology we have.

This story is also saying that we are all descendants of noah and his family (since everyone died). Why isn't something this cataclysmic (sp) written in the history books? Surely noah or someone in his family would of written down how god saved them out of everyone else in the world.

If god really wanted to break natures laws he would of sent noah and the animals to another planet while he destroyed everyone on this one.
 
  • #643
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 08 2005,12:54)]ok good... but then don't use the flood in a scientific debate against evolution. (I forgot if you used it or if I was responding to the site... which isn't very scientific :p)
lol.. there isn't anything anyone can say that is scientific, or factual in a debate against evolution.. remember?
 
  • #644
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] for scientists claim that all people are descended from one pair.
scientists have never claimed that it's one pair. it was one female and the times do not coincide with adam and eve (they did it with mitochondrial DNA)
besides... I'm going to search some more but it looks like it was disproven.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/inthenews/2003/itn-03-03.htm
(I'll come back to the others... including finch... later)
 
  • #645
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5% for the calculation. The population growth from 1900 to 2000 has been closer to 0.132% per year [Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984; Martin 1999]. At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 15,500 years. And recent population growth has been historically high
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 BC, even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 BC, when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 BC, Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
the population thing is out the window.

ok, I was wrong. there has been a "y-chromosome adam" but (emphasis mine)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The same principles find that the most recent human male common ancestor ("Y-chromosome Adam") lived an estimated 84,000 years after the "mitochondrial Eve" and also came from Africa [Underhill et al. 2000; Hawkes 2000; Yuehai et al. 2001].
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html
darn... I love that site!

I can't find anything about it so finch, you win.
 
  • #646
Was their ever a proposed flood date???

It would have to be far back enough to allow time for the people to spread out and forget about what happened for the most part.
 
  • #647
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The the fact that the boat built was impossible to built and given the circumstances even if they COULD of fit a male and female of every species of EVERYTHING (which they couldn't) they wouldn't have the resources or could possibly FIND all the animals to put into that ark. The ark, physically, is impossible to build NOW with all the technology we have.

This story is also saying that we are all descendants of noah and his family (since everyone died). Why isn't something this cataclysmic (sp) written in the history books? Surely noah or someone in his family would of written down how god saved them out of everyone else in the world.

If god really wanted to break natures laws he would of sent noah and the animals to another planet while he destroyed everyone on this one.

It was quite possible to build an ark, even if it took years in the making. I also just learned that the original hebrew word for beast (as in "every beast") most likely referrs to land-dwelling vertebrates. Noah sure didn't have the resources to find all the animals - God did.

As for Noah not being in the history books, that's because the history books don't want people complaining as soon as they add anything "religious". The fact is that the old testament is the book of ancient Jewish history.

And it wasn't a matter of God breaking the laws of nature, rather, he was using nature to do what he wanted.

Peter

PS: NYflytrap, for that answer to you question, read the story about the tower of Babel in genesis
 
  • #648
if this was so, ruba, that the earth was covered in water, wheres the sedement from when the water was there, and where did the water all go? that mutch water draining off the land would  form many huge erosion channles as soil and dirt was swept out to sea by the receeding water. There are none that would serve to prove this. The sheer FORCE of that much water receeding that quickly would have gouged deep channles and wiped the soil form costal areas, leaving rock
 
  • #649
Puctuated equilibrium: Darwin saw evolution as a slow, continuous process, without sudden jumps; instead of a slow, continuous movement, evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill ("equilibrium") "punctuated" by episodes of very fast development of new forms.

I was staring right at it in the zoology textbook, and I wrote it as puntuated evolution.  Sorry to confuse anyone.
 
  • #650
not to mention we would have universal salt deposits when the water that didnt drain out to sea and was trapped in huge puddles, so to speak, evaporated. And shurly all lakes would have some salt content. saltwaterlaks are reletevly rare, and part of the rising water was afterall ocen water, the rain and sea would have mixed. so in theory most lakes should have some sodium chloride content and descendants of stranded sea life, and why arnt all marine animals evemly distributed, many are found only in certain localities. same with feshwater life. would not they be distributed evely trought the globe? why are there freshwater fish at all because they couldnt suvive that much salt inidation anyway!
 
  • #651
BTW, someone mentioned evolution as theory being an educated guess. I love this one, it's so misleading. Creationism (theory) is also an educated guess, if we consider theologists are educated in theology and they have made this guess. So how are they different? Evolution is based in science, creationism is not (although many like to make it appear so).
 
  • #652
(whew) lastly, while rain would have diluted most salt deposits and lots of salt would be flushed out rivers and streams, lakes would still be rather salty because saltwater and frshwater dont mix very well unless disturbed. Groundwater and aquiders would be salty, and the worlds soils alkaline. and we still would have universle salt depostits and almost every older ded-end (river flows in but one does not flow out) lake of age would by hypersaline like the great salt lake or dead sea from runoff carrying the salt being concentraded by rivers in the lake
 
  • #653
You can't defend evolution with logic because creationists are free to invoke heavenly hocus-pocus whenever they want.  Let's face it, if God can pull a worldwide flood out of His hat and put all the water back in when He's done, surely He can gather up all the salt afterwards.

The living and evolving universe described by physicists, geologists, and biologists is far more divine than the six days of magic tricks allowed by creationists.
 
  • #654
wait if what the bible says is truth, then whatevers not in the bible is just guesswork on what god did, right?
 
  • #655
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It was quite possible to build an ark, even if it took years in the making.  I also just learned that the original hebrew word for beast (as in "every beast") most likely referrs to land-dwelling vertebrates.  Noah sure didn't have the resources to find all the animals - God did.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And it wasn't a matter of God breaking the laws of nature, rather, he was using nature to do what he wanted.
in order for the flood myth to be true, God HAD to break the laws of nature.
By the time noah had built an ark big enough to house so many animals, parts of it would have rotted off, people would have stolen his materials and stuff...  just please, read this: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
if you still believe that story is true, then fine but don't say that with the laws of nature it could possibly be true. I don't care what you say but without god messing up the universe it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
what finch mentioned, It would be impossible for all the food of all the animals, it would be impossible to start off an ecosystem with only two of every species, all plants and aquatic animals (well, all plants and MOST sea organisms) would have died from the salt content/lack of salt content, ... just read the site.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And shurly all lakes would have some salt content.
they do but it would be higher.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]BTW, someone mentioned evolution as theory being an educated guess
evolution isn't an educated guess. An educated guess is a hypothesis and a theory is two steps or more above it.
creationism ins't even a hypothesis.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]and evolving universe described by physicists,
umm... as long as we ALL know that the "evolving universe" has nothing to do with the theory of evolution...
 
  • #657
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 08 2005,8:45)]It was quite possible to build an ark, even if it took years in the making.
A study was done and the size of the ark would make it unfloatable and it would take an incredible long time to make even with many people and all the technology we have today.
 
  • #658
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 08 2005,8:45)]I also just learned that the original hebrew word for beast (as in "every beast") most likely referrs to land-dwelling vertebrates. Noah sure didn't have the resources to find all the animals - God did.
Even if he did find all of them there wouldnt be a large enough ark to fit all of them in that would float.
 
  • #659
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 08 2005,8:45)]As for Noah not being in the history books, that's because the history books don't want people complaining as soon as they add anything "religious". The fact is that the old testament is the book of ancient Jewish history.
I know alot of things about the old testament. If you are saying that something is said about noah's ark in the old testament that is different from the new testament i dont know it yet. In the global history book we study there is a full chapter on Jesus. I don't think that's the issue.
 
  • #660
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 08 2005,9:21)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 08 2005,8:45)]It was quite possible to build an ark, even if it took years in the making.
A study was done and the size of the ark would make it unfloatable and it would take an incredible long time to make even with many people and all the technology we have today.
That, and it would've been impossible to house two of every animal and have them surivive. The environment would've likely killed many, and the carnivores would've eaten all the herbivores (or starved).

And even then, it would've been impossible for many animals to cross entire continents and oceans, particularly those that can't swim.
smile_n_32.gif


Put me in the evolution column.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top