Noah

[AnaMejiaP]

I understand. Let me help (coming from a person who is awesome and creating cool and popular threads (wink wink) (cough cough)

When you start a thread, you need to explain what your purpose is. You pasted something, but you didn't state what the purpose of your new thread was about. You could say something like, "This is a recent conversation and I disagree with her, because..." This will allow others to interact. By pasting this, one can only ask, "So?"

So, what do you think about that conversation that lead you to paste it here?

Hope this helped.

Thanks I'm also new to forums so these rules and etc are a bit confusing for me.So, delete this one and restate my purpose?

[Captain Colostomy]

Just edit the initial post.

[AnaMejiaP]

I say 100 years because when Noah was first mentioned in Genesis 5:32, he was 500 years old and when he got into the ark he was 600 years old.

Thus we can deduce that your primary brain fart is to believe that someone lived to be 500 years old and then built a boat.


Let me say this as politely as possible.


That's fucking stupid.

Your honesty is greatly appreciated. But in my disclaimer "Before I begin" I did state that my views will indeed contradict your world-view. It may seem stupid for you, but it's indeed true to me.

[Minimalist]

There is only one reality.

Please do not think that your fantasies are reality.

[Esquilax]

Actually, Noah didn’t travel anywhere. The animals came to him. (Remember the supernatural thing I was talking about? Genesis 6:20) Noah spends about 100 years before the flood came in building the ark and during this duration the animals came to him. I say 100 years because when Noah was first mentioned in Genesis 5:32, he was 500 years old and when he got into the ark he was 600 years old. Also some people even secular geologists believe that at the time the continents were together. To be honest, I am not too sure what to think about that. Plus God did not command that Noah to bring every known animal. The ark only carried air-breathing, land-dwelling, crawlers, and winged animals. Only the “couples” of each species, at the time the tremendous variation of species did not exist during the time of Noah.

Couple of clarifications: though at one time the continents were a single landmass- or at least, that's the accepted scientific theory- the timescale for that is well out of proportion with the biblical timeline. We're talking a supercontinent that began to break apart 200 million years ago, long before humans even existed, and definitely before the biblical young earth claims posit.

Being that this is the case, how do you account for all the land animals from other continents travelling to the ark? How the hell does an echidna swim all that way? And by what homing instinct was this exodus accomplished?

And how did we get the current state of biological life on earth, if there were far less creatures on the planet at the time of the ark? And you do understand that two of each animal is not a viable breeding population, right? Especially not in an ecosystem that has carnivores that demand prey.

It is suggested that Noah brought juveniles and wouldn’t have brought adults inside the ark. This means that there was more space in the ark, enough food and a lot less waste.

Doesn't say anything about climate requirements, though: a polar bear is suited to a much colder climate than the ark would allow.

Sorry but the link says it doesn’t exist? The flood came from two places, from the sky and underground. Which suggested that huge volcanic eruption, earthquakes, and a “fountain” of water were released.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...waters.asp he probably explains it better than I do.

Oh no, please, please don't use Answers in Genesis for things. Except ridicule, maybe. Their head dude is a bullying lunatic, and their statement of faith states outright that they won't even consider any evidence that conflicts with their biblical worldview. They have an all consuming bias, and thus anything they say will just be an amazingly painful-looking mental contortion.

Besides, the question was about where this massive volume of water went, not where it came from.

I have a question that I may elaborate more on later but first I will like to know your opinion on. Most secular scholars agree that many books of the OT were written after the fact, yeah? Since, Daniel and Ezekiel and other prophetic books were too “accurately demonstrated” that it must have been written afterwards. Here is my question, the authors who wrote the prophetic book, why state accurate descriptions of war and then we find in Ezekiel that he fails to “prophesy correctly” what had happen to Tyre? If the books were written after the events, then why make a mistake? They obviously knew what happen in the events but failed to do with this one? (I don’t know if this makes a whole lot of sense)

Could be a case of bad information, or a glitch in the compilation of the book, or it was just a case of a prophesy written before the fact, that was wrong. Either way, you end up with a book of fraudulent prophecy.

[Fruity]

What Captain said. You'll be ok. As long as you can take the heat. I'm warning you. It will get pretty messy. Take it like a Mejia. I know a few, and they can take it.

Welcome

Did you post your introduction yet? If not, I suggest you do that, too.

[AnaMejiaP]

What Captain said. You'll be ok. As long as you can take the heat. I'm warning you. It will get pretty messy. Take it like a Mejia. I know a few, and they can take it.

Welcome

Did you post your introduction yet? If not, I suggest you do that, too.

Thanks again. and yeah I hope I can take the heat.

[Minimalist]

If the books were written after the events, then why make a mistake?

You are assuming that the only purpose for these writings is the one you have been conditioned to believe. Ever hear of propaganda? In 1944 the Germans dropped leaflets to allied troops in Normandy assuring them that the V-1 rockets were destroying the cities of Britain. (They weren't.)



So, why would someone sitting in Babylon write something promising destruction to Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar? Think about it.

[NoraBrimstone]

Where did all those animals shit? Who cleaned it up?

[Cyberman]

Noah's Ark? Again? What are we, five years old or something?

I apologise, that was rather rude of me. However, I hope I've illustrated the level of scorn most of us feel about stories like this.

What fascinates me though with this sort of rationalisation exercises, is the sheer amount of ad hoc elements used to shore up an increasingly unwieldy explanation and try to make the story fit the naturalistic world; ultimately rendered pointless anyway, because the very instant you have to resort to magic to get you out of a tight corner, all naturalistic explanations go flying out of the window. You'd be far better off going for the 'magic' option right from the start and treating the story as magical throughout. Like a fairytale, in fact.