Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_Quasimodo]

Totally made up and lies. Only hearsay. Most cultures don't even have 4000 years of written language let alone historic records that show they were the very same ones always living in a particular spot. Oddly, the same people who discredit the Bible based on the belief that it is based on verbal tradition, don't apply the same logic to primitive cultures who insist that they've always lived somewhere...

Not made up, Nipper. There are mountains of reliable evidence showing the existence of people across the globe for hundreds of thousands of years (actually much longer than that).. I have photographed petroglyphs nearby that are around 10,000 years old.

You can (of course) believe whatever tribal history you wish, but calling the work of thousands of researchers and historians 'lies' out of your own ignorance is going a little too far.

[_Quasimodo]

Flowering plants. Might there have been some as food on the Ark --- Why not? I notice you have no comments about putting elephants, monkeys, apes, horse, goats, oxen to work on board the ark.

I don't recall hearing anything about millions of plant pots being loaded onto the ark. I wonder how all the species of plants we have in the world today survived the flood.

[_Sethbag]

Subgenius, during the time the Flood is supposed to have occurred, there were people living on every continent save Antarctica, who had been there for thousands of years prior, and continued on through the claimed Flood period, whose descendants carry on their peoples' existence down to this very day, unbroken.

Totally made up and lies. Only hearsay. Most cultures don't even have 4000 years of written language let alone historic records that show they were the very same ones always living in a particular spot. Oddly, the same people who discredit the Bible based on the belief that it is based on verbal tradition, don't apply the same logic to primitive cultures who insist that they've always lived somewhere...

You do realize that we have more evidence for the existence of populations than just written records, or even oral tradition, don't you?

Totally made up and lies. Only hearsay.

It's kind of hard to carry on a reasonable discussion with a person who asserts that science is some sort of vast conspiracy.

[_Sethbag]

Isn't it great that Noah planted acres upon acres of clover and flowers and whatnot onboard the ark, so that those bees could make honey. Out of curiosity, LittleNipper, do you know what raw materials bees use to make honey?

Flowering plants. Might there have been some as food on the Ark --- Why not? I notice you have no comments about putting elephants, monkeys, apes, horse, goats, oxen to work on board the ark.

I guess it would only take a few flowers if we were only talking about a single drop of honey. I assumed you meant that honey could have been produced aboard the ark in non-trivial quantities, since you mentioned it in the context of food problems aboard the ark. According to the York County Beekeepers' Association, it takes 10,000 worker bees to gather one pound of honey, and that they tap two million flowers to get the nectar. So, how much honey are you suggesting might have been produced on the ark?

I notice you have no comments about putting elephants, monkeys, apes, horse, goats, oxen to work on board the ark.

Does that idea actually require comment?

For the record, LittleNipper, when faced with the problem of explaining how tens of thousands of animals were fed and otherwise administered to on a daily basis on the ark, suggested that perhaps trained monkeys, elephants, apes, and some other animals might have shared the burden. Make of that what you will; I, for one, am speechless.

[_just me]

Flowering plants. Might there have been some as food on the Ark --- Why not? I notice you have no comments about putting elephants, monkeys, apes, horse, goats, oxen to work on board the ark.

I guess it would only take a few flowers if we were only talking about a single drop of honey. I assumed you meant that honey could have been produced aboard the ark in non-trivial quantities, since you mentioned it in the context of food problems aboard the ark. According to the York County Beekeepers' Association, it takes 10,000 worker bees to gather one pound of honey, and that they tap two million flowers to get the nectar. So, how much honey are you suggesting might have been produced on the ark?

I notice you have no comments about putting elephants, monkeys, apes, horse, goats, oxen to work on board the ark.

Does that idea actually require comment?

For the record, LittleNipper, when faced with the problem of explaining how tens of thousands of animals were fed and otherwise administered to on a daily basis on the ark, suggested that perhaps trained monkeys, elephants, apes, and some other animals might have shared the burden. Make of that what you will; I, for one, am speechless.

This would make such a hilarious movie.

[_LittleNipper]

Totally made up and lies. Only hearsay. Most cultures don't even have 4000 years of written language let alone historic records that show they were the very same ones always living in a particular spot. Oddly, the same people who discredit the Bible based on the belief that it is based on verbal tradition, don't apply the same logic to primitive cultures who insist that they've always lived somewhere...

Not made up, Nipper. There are mountains of reliable evidence showing the existence of people across the globe for hundreds of thousands of years (actually much longer than that).. I have photographed petroglyphs nearby that are around 10,000 years old.

You can (of course) believe whatever tribal history you wish, but calling the work of thousands of researchers and historians 'lies' out of your own ignorance is going a little too far.

There are thousands of Christian scientist, research workers, and historians would disagree. How one can actually date the exact date of petroglyphs is questionable; however, I see no reason that some things didn't survive the Flood. But there is no rational reason to imagine that an artifact found somewhere, has anything to do with the people now living in that area. America is a perfect example. What the American natives accomplished has very little to do with Italian immigrants presently living in Brooklyn.

[_SteelHead]

Yes because it makes so much sense to compare an indigenous low tech society with a high tech highly mobile society with airplanes.

[_Sethbag]

LittleNipper, just as one example, it is now believed that the Australian Aborigines arrived down under in the 40,000-50,000 years ago timeframe. This is believed for a variety of reasons. The descendants of these people are still around.

Likewise, though there are now obviously more people in the Americas than just the descendants of the original immigrants, some of those descendants are still here. It is believed that their ancestors arrived here in the 12,000-15,000 years ago time frame, again for a variety of reasons.

Both of these populations have existed in the two territories I mentioned for longer than the Biblical timeline for the Flood.

Unless, like Subgenius, you perhaps wish to argue that it's just a matter of timing, and maybe Noah's flood really occurred over 50,000 years ago. Find out when the Europeans and Asians are supposed to have gone into those areas, and you'd be pushing back the Flood even more tens of thousands of years.

Or all the scientists could just be wrong. Really the Native Americans are just descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites, and showed up in the Americas about 2600 years ago, and the Australian Aboriginies showed up there sometime in the last 4000-5000 years, after Noah's Flood. God just speeded up the mutation rates in their genes to make it look like that population split from the Europeans and Asians over 50,000 years ago.

Well played, God. Well played.

[_Quasimodo]

There are thousands of Christian scientist, research workers, and historians would disagree. How one can actually date the exact date of petroglyphs is questionable; however, I see no reason that some things didn't survive the Flood. But there is no rational reason to imagine that an artifact found somewhere, has anything to do with the people now living in that area. America is a perfect example. What the American natives accomplished has very little to do with Italian immigrants presently living in Brooklyn.

I doubt thousands. The decedents of the people who made the petroglyphs are still living in the South West. Their pottery designs still carry some of the motifs expressed in those early petroglyphs. You are just grasping at straws.

Maybe it's time you did some rethinking. As much as you cherish your beliefs, they are indefensible. Have some milk and cookies and do a little reading.

[_LittleNipper]

Does that idea actually require comment?

For the record, LittleNipper, when faced with the problem of explaining how tens of thousands of animals were fed and otherwise administered to on a daily basis on the ark, suggested that perhaps trained monkeys, elephants, apes, and some other animals might have shared the burden. Make of that what you will; I, for one, am speechless.

This would make such a hilarious movie.

I agree that such might make a very interesting movie (if done honestly and not to poke fun at) , and parts could be very funny. I'm sure even Noah had a laugh or two. Look, I realize that somethings seem hard to comprehend. But God has a way of working things out and inspiring ideas that at one time likely seemed totally ridiculous. I've seen Dr. Doolittle and The Castaways, Swiss Family Robinson. They are all just entertaining movies but stranger things have happened! And I believe the Bible is factual.

LittleNipper, just as one example, it is now believed that the Australian Aborigines arrived down under in the 40,000-50,000 years ago timeframe. This is believed for a variety of reasons. The descendants of these people are still around.

Likewise, though there are now obviously more people in the Americas than just the descendants of the original immigrants, some of those descendants are still here. It is believed that their ancestors arrived here in the 12,000-15,000 years ago time frame, again for a variety of reasons.

Both of these populations have existed in the two territories I mentioned for longer than the Biblical timeline for the Flood.

Unless, like Subgenius, you perhaps wish to argue that it's just a matter of timing, and maybe Noah's flood really occurred over 50,000 years ago. Find out when the Europeans and Asians are supposed to have gone into those areas, and you'd be pushing back the Flood even more tens of thousands of years.

Or all the scientists could just be wrong. Really the Native Americans are just descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites, and showed up in the Americas about 2600 years ago, and the Australian Aboriginies showed up there sometime in the last 4000-5000 years, after Noah's Flood. God just speeded up the mutation rates in their genes to make it look like that population split from the Europeans and Asians over 50,000 years ago.

Well played, God. Well played.

Are you suggesting that Aboriginies could not be connected to whites by only 4500 years... Please, I thought all that racial superiority bias ended years ago. The Aboriginies have oral histories. The Egyptians thought that the Pharoah was a God through linage and that the Egyptians never lost a battle... Of course the Egyptians had the nasty habit of desecrating all the statues and inscriptions of predecessors that suggested otherwise...