Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:25 pmhttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/30jan_smellofmoondust/
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Could Noah's Ark Have Happened Realistically? Well, Yes.
Page 48 of 52
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:25 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:27 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:28 pmThe human race nor any other race could reproduce to the level we have today with only two of the species.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:29 pmKvatchdom wrote:The human race nor any other race could reproduce to the level we have today with only two of the species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit#Reproduction
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:29 pmKvatchdom wrote:The human race nor any other race could reproduce to the level we have today with only two of the species.
Well actually, the humans would have had Noah, his Wife, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But still not enough for a viable population.
EDIT: NOTE: I do not believe this, I'm just correcting the statement.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:30 pmBig Jim P wrote:Ailiailia wrote:
Problem there. The moon has a density of 3.346 g/cm3 which ... by the magic of metric ... you can tell just by looking at the number is three times the density of water.
However, the moon isn't necessarily ALL water. Using figures I got from (no kidding) Yahoo Answers, the volume of the Moon is 2.2 x 1010 km3. If it was all water and my previous estimate was correct, that's about 5 times as much as necessary to flood the Earth to the top of Mt Everest.
I wonder what else God has hidden in there. Maybe a giant electromagnet?
Quiet you. I am trying to solve one of the great theological mysteries of mankind, and do NOT need to be bothered with facts.
OK then: explain why the Sun and the Moon look almost the same size.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:32 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:35 pmNo it couldn't. There is no way that the entire world could have flooded and drained in "40 days and 40 nights", there's no way Noah crammed two of every species from the land and sea onto a boat, and the fact that several other religions from the Fertile Crescent area have the same myth means that there was probably just a flood that affected a bunch of people.
Because the moon is closer to earth than the sun and the distances are just right so they look almost the same size?
Because the moon is closer to earth than the sun and the distances are just right so they look almost the same size?
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:39 pmIs all that plausible? Sorta-ish, maybe, with a wee side of meh.
But you're dipping your foot into the shark tank that is NSG on religion without even a worthwhile goal. Even supposing we could prove Genesis to be whole-cloth accurate in any shape of the word, it's nothing to most Atheists, you've at best proven the Jews to be much better historians than they had previously believed. God is not necessary in any of the tales of Genesis, as silly as that may be to you or I, it's simply true there is no story in the Bible in which God can't be replaced with "and then it just happened". Proving the Bible to be literally factual will do nothing more to advance our Christian God than proving the Iliad's Troy to be a true place has advanced our beliefs in the Greek Pantheon. To be frank, what we find is more circumstantial evidence but until we find God's fingerprint on the darkside of the moon (note: I'm not imply that God actually has a fingerprint on the moon) we're not going to be able to tie Him to creation no matter how much seems to point to Him.
Apologist to me is useful only as a shield for those wavering in faith, a useful tool to let those who believe realize their beliefs are not as silly as they are told. It's effectiveness in getting non-believers on our side is... so far as I have seen weak to near ineffective.
As for me, I've taken to seeing the flood as the story it was meant to be, most Atheists even admit to the historicity of the flood in that there was certainly a period in which Mesopotamian society was all but wiped out by one. In reality that is all we need to prove and it is well evidenced for that purpose. We need not assume God had to flood the entire world for the meaning and more importantly truth of the story to ring true. Only to wipe out the bulk of human society which was then indeed concentrated along the Euphrates.
But you're dipping your foot into the shark tank that is NSG on religion without even a worthwhile goal. Even supposing we could prove Genesis to be whole-cloth accurate in any shape of the word, it's nothing to most Atheists, you've at best proven the Jews to be much better historians than they had previously believed. God is not necessary in any of the tales of Genesis, as silly as that may be to you or I, it's simply true there is no story in the Bible in which God can't be replaced with "and then it just happened". Proving the Bible to be literally factual will do nothing more to advance our Christian God than proving the Iliad's Troy to be a true place has advanced our beliefs in the Greek Pantheon. To be frank, what we find is more circumstantial evidence but until we find God's fingerprint on the darkside of the moon (note: I'm not imply that God actually has a fingerprint on the moon) we're not going to be able to tie Him to creation no matter how much seems to point to Him.
Apologist to me is useful only as a shield for those wavering in faith, a useful tool to let those who believe realize their beliefs are not as silly as they are told. It's effectiveness in getting non-believers on our side is... so far as I have seen weak to near ineffective.
As for me, I've taken to seeing the flood as the story it was meant to be, most Atheists even admit to the historicity of the flood in that there was certainly a period in which Mesopotamian society was all but wiped out by one. In reality that is all we need to prove and it is well evidenced for that purpose. We need not assume God had to flood the entire world for the meaning and more importantly truth of the story to ring true. Only to wipe out the bulk of human society which was then indeed concentrated along the Euphrates.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:39 pmActually the proof says that it's impossible for the Ark to have existed. Especially with a world flood that COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. But I've been beaten to the punch on this one
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:40 pmVeladio wrote:Kvatchdom wrote:The human race nor any other race could reproduce to the level we have today with only two of the species.
Well actually, the humans would have had Noah, his Wife, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But still not enough for a viable population.
EDIT: NOTE: I do not believe this, I'm just correcting the statement.
Also, that must mean that there were no more than four of each chromosome, excluding abnormalities like Down syndrome, which couldn't possibly account for the genetic diversity of the Khoi-San and Sub-Saharans in general.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:41 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:42 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:43 pmLeepaidamba wrote:Veladio wrote:Well actually, the humans would have had Noah, his Wife, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But still not enough for a viable population.
EDIT: NOTE: I do not believe this, I'm just correcting the statement.
Also, that must mean that there were no more than four of each chromosome, excluding abnormalities like Down syndrome, which couldn't possibly account for the genetic diversity of the Khoi-San and Sub-Saharans in general.
Well, though again I'm note advocating Noah's Ark as whole cloth literal.
Shem, Ham and Japeth all had wives prior to the Flood who came along with them. A genetically viable population at 8? Not likely but, then we're assuming this to be a work of God, I'm thinking if we wish to believe it as a wholly accurate thing then He could certainly mess around with their genetics and those of their immediate descendents so that they could be genetically viable.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:44 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:44 pmThe Merchant Republics wrote:Is all that plausible? Sorta-ish, maybe, with a wee side of meh.
But you're dipping your foot into the shark tank that is NSG on religion without even a worthwhile goal. Even supposing we could prove Genesis to be whole-cloth accurate in any shape of the word, it's nothing to most Atheists, you've at best proven the Jews to be much better historians than they had previously believed. God is not necessary in any of the tales of Genesis, as silly as that may be to you or I, it's simply true there is no story in the Bible in which God can't be replaced with "and then it just happened". Proving the Bible to be literally factual will do nothing more to advance our Christian God than proving the Iliad's Troy to be a true place has advanced our beliefs in the Greek Pantheon. To be frank, what we find is more circumstantial evidence but until we find God's fingerprint on the darkside of the moon (note: I'm not imply that God actually has a fingerprint on the moon) we're not going to be able to tie Him to creation no matter how much seems to point to Him.
Apologist to me is useful only as a shield for those wavering in faith, a useful tool to let those who believe realize their beliefs are not as silly as they are told. It's effectiveness in getting non-believers on our side is... so far as I have seen weak to near ineffective.
As for me, I've taken to seeing the flood as the story it was meant to be, most Atheists even admit to the historicity of the flood in that there was certainly a period in which Mesopotamian society was all but wiped out by one. In reality that is all we need to prove and it is well evidenced for that purpose. We need not assume God had to flood the entire world for the meaning and more importantly truth of the story to ring true. Only to wipe out the bulk of human society which was then indeed concentrated along the Euphrates.
1) He hasn't proved anything about the skill of the Jews at being historians.
2) I thought Troy was discovered in an archeological dig?
3) How does creation point to god?
4) Even if that were true...1 female and 4 males (That were also related)...would not be enough to reestablish a viable population along the Euphrates.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:44 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:46 pmThe Merchant Republics wrote:Leepaidamba wrote:Also, that must mean that there were no more than four of each chromosome, excluding abnormalities like Down syndrome, which couldn't possibly account for the genetic diversity of the Khoi-San and Sub-Saharans in general.
Well, though again I'm note advocating Noah's Ark as whole cloth literal.
Shem, Ham and Japeth all had wives prior to the Flood who came along with them. A genetically viable population at 8? Not likely but, then we're assuming this to be a work of God, I'm thinking if we wish to believe it as a wholly accurate thing then He could certainly mess around with their genetics and those of their immediate descendents so that they could be genetically viable.
You can't just "assume" god is real to use it as argument in a debate.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:46 pmI think that realistically, he did put all the animals on the boat. All the animals he knew about, most likely farm animals. The legend of Noah isn't only Christian, but it also appears in Greek Mythos, flood and everything except that the his name changed from culture to culture. Scientists recently discovered villages in the Black Sea as well, making the story of Noah much more likely as well. It probably just grew out of proportions, esp. when all animals is ambiguous.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:46 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:46 pmGen 7:7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.
As many as 5 different bloodlines. Fewer if the wives were sisters of each other, but more if Noah's sons weren't all his by blood. Which isn't inconceivable given that he was 600 years old ... I'm not Ageist or anything but ick.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:48 pmAiliailia wrote:Veladio wrote:Well actually, the humans would have had Noah, his Wife, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 7:7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.
As many as 5 different bloodlines. Fewer if the wives were sisters of each other, but more if Noah's sons weren't all his by blood. Which isn't inconceivable given that he was 600 years old ... I'm not Ageist or anything but ick.
Ok, then I admit I was wrong on that point.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:50 pmThe Merchant Republics wrote:Is all that plausible? Sorta-ish, maybe, with a wee side of meh.
But you're dipping your foot into the shark tank that is NSG on religion without even a worthwhile goal. Even supposing we could prove Genesis to be whole-cloth accurate in any shape of the word, it's nothing to most Atheists, you've at best proven the Jews to be much better historians than they had previously believed. God is not necessary in any of the tales of Genesis, as silly as that may be to you or I, it's simply true there is no story in the Bible in which God can't be replaced with "and then it just happened". Proving the Bible to be literally factual will do nothing more to advance our Christian God than proving the Iliad's Troy to be a true place has advanced our beliefs in the Greek Pantheon. To be frank, what we find is more circumstantial evidence but until we find God's fingerprint on the darkside of the moon (note: I'm not imply that God actually has a fingerprint on the moon) we're not going to be able to tie Him to creation no matter how much seems to point to Him.
Apologist to me is useful only as a shield for those wavering in faith, a useful tool to let those who believe realize their beliefs are not as silly as they are told. It's effectiveness in getting non-believers on our side is... so far as I have seen weak to near ineffective.
As for me, I've taken to seeing the flood as the story it was meant to be, most Atheists even admit to the historicity of the flood in that there was certainly a period in which Mesopotamian society was all but wiped out by one. In reality that is all we need to prove and it is well evidenced for that purpose. We need not assume God had to flood the entire world for the meaning and more importantly truth of the story to ring true. Only to wipe out the bulk of human society which was then indeed concentrated along the Euphrates.
1: No, it's not plausible at all. The water getting there and leaving; the fact that the entire earth's surface shows no evidence of having an insanely large amount of water on it and many more things.
2: The existence of things points to god? Well, if you define god as the existence of things, then yes. There is nothing inherent about, say, the moon, that makes you think that a creator did it unless you are biased towards that answer and the false positives associated with such a non-skeptical bias.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:52 pmPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:57 pmVeladio wrote:1) He hasn't proved anything about the skill of the Jews at being historians.
2) I thought Troy was discovered in an archeological dig?
3) How does creation point to god?
4) Even if that were true...1 female and 4 males (That were also related)...would not be enough to reestablish a viable population along the Euphrates.
1) No. I'm speaking hypothetically. If he had proved anything that would at best give us reason to say "Huh, the Jews really got that flood bit right, well I guess they're weren't terrible historians." not as I'm sure was the hoped response of "My heavens! Of course the Jews were right about the flood therefore God exists let us all repent and become born-again Christians hallelujah!".
2) Yes. That's what I was pointing out. The discovery of a literal Troy has not been a boon to Greek Pantheon nor would a literal flood be any form of prove to the Atheist about the existence of God.
3) In ways that if I explained them would either lead you to say I'm using an anthropocentric/religious bias. Ultimately if I bothered to pursue this course of logic, we would inevitably come to a standstill wherein I'm defending my position on faith and you on skepticism, which are irreconcilable positions. Forgive me if this sounds aggressively cynical I've just had this conversation too often.
4) To my memory Ham, Shem and Japeth were also married and brought their wives with them. Not that 8 is really anymore viable than 5, when I talk of wiping out the Euphrates civilizations doesn't necessarily preclude other survivors even if it was a whole 40 days. The point of the story is Noah's obedience and God's purging of a faithless civilization, the apocalypse of it all is not undersold if they were more than 8 survivors, considering the hundreds of thousands who did live there.