It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Noahs Ark?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
how would have land animals from the americas, i doubt grizzly bears can swim to the mid east or walk on water. Another problem would be for water animals, yes water animals. if there was a global flood slat and fresh water around the world would mix causing an unstable environment for many sea creatures.




posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
as already posted there are many flood stories, gilgamesh among them.

The Hebrew Alphabet is derived from the phoenician alphabet, so it isnt surprising to find phoenician stories pre-dating the same hebrew stories by thousands of years. Adam and Eve, Enoch, Noah, Samsom and Delilah, David and Goliath, Giants, Angels breeding with humanity, etc etc. These are not Stories that belong to the old testament alone. These appear in writings much older than the Bible.

If you want to read some fascinating stories, study the Phoenician Culture. They had some incredible contributions to our civilization.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
one kind of animal can evolve into another kind of animal have a problem believing that one pair of animals can speciate to show great diversity within their own kind.

Its generally not accepted because its unreasonable. Starting off with a single pair of cats, and soon you'll get a lot of cats, but I suspect that before long you won't have any cats, becuase they'll be too inbred. Some animal might not be affected by this, but most will.


If you believe that the human species could have evolved from apes one species of cat sharing ancestors with another species of cat shouldn't be a problem.

No one cites this as a problem.


I am genuinely saddened that anyone would label belief in the word of God ignorance.

It is the very definition of ignorance to not know or to even ignore evidence. One can beleive the word of god as being literally true, but one simply cannot assert that there is evidence for it, certainly not for stuff like the flood and whatnot.


The Lord has given us information about the past because it is important for us to know.

If the Creator has given humanity any evidence of the past, its the type that comes out of logical scientific inquiry into nature and the past.


The Genesis acount of the flood is not only factual history


it is not factual history. You might beleive that it is but its certainly at odds with the scientific understanding of history and nature.

it also points to our salvation via todays Ark Jesus Christ.

That's nice, but it is irrelevant.


ananya, quoting doug yourchay
It is scientifically possible to place a life form in suspended animation reduced down to its DNA.

I'd be wary of anything this guy says if he thinks its 'scientifically possible' to put life forms into suspended animation by reducing them into their dna. That doesn't even make sense.

Also, he seems to be falling for some silly fallacy wherein 'perfect' examples of each of the animals can somehow magically give rise ot all the current variation. There is not enough genetic diversity in a pair of animals to account for all the current diversity. Also, if this was true, it would require that animals evolved so rapidly that we'd be witnessesing enourmous changes constantly today, rather than mere speration and occasional speciation.

And also, this is all just rampant unfounded speculation. Noah couldn't build the ark so angels, code word for scientifically advanced humans, build it. And then what, didn't get on it? Didn't make one for themselves? And noah the drunk was able to manage all that equipment? And where does it say that the animals had to be taken out of suspended animation and grown in a lab? Is that what noah had to do with the crow and dove when he sent them out?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
What woudl you consider a kind? Cat kind? What about frogs? Are all amphibians one kind or multiple kinds? How many kinds of cattle are there? Are lamas and camels the same kind? Are deer and antelope the same kind? What monkeys and apes? What about chimps and man. They aren't so very different, in many ways they are less different than some of the animals most include as a 'kind'. What are the limits of a kind? A species can have some workable operational definitions, but what about kind?



A kind is defined by reproduction. Animals that can produce offspring with each other are of the same kind. Living things always reproduce after their own kind. This is observable and testable today.

______
Steve



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
first let me say according to the kjv genesis chapter 6 and chapter 7 it was more than 2 of all flesh. they also took seven clean beast of every kind. chapter 7 verse 2. however have u built this size ship the exact lengths of it. the exact way. also remember 2 of every kind does not mean adult size baby size would of been fine. also all the anaimals u see today alot is creation from man playing with the genes cross breading and such. so there wasnt those types there.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
accutually there are very few human made species.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
yes there r alot from the mule to dogs and cats half zebras cause mixed with with a horse. just check it out go to the zoos they have alot there. no different than the food u eat today example would be your fruit u eat. alot of it is man made. apples oranges watermelons goes on and on. if it has no seed in it its not God made its man made. Real fruit has seeds in it. even grapes r made without seeds now days. and we wonder why were a nation of sick and obese people.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
taking the bible literally misses the point, imo.

take adam and eve. lets say it happened 10,000 years ago. lets say they had 4 healthy offspring. and each of those had 4 healthy offspring etc.
lets say each generation takes 25 years, so thats 400 generations.

I'm no math wiz, bit it doesn't add up to 6 billion people......


and forget getting the diversity we have, pygmies to vikings.....



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
but shar think of all the other species of natural animalks. Man made doesn't come close to these numbers.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Interesting topic.

First of all, not ALL Christians discount evolution. I, for example, am a fan of it. Not that I believe in it entirely, but I would definately not rule it out. I am a Roman Catholic, and to make an assumption that simply for that fact I discount evolution is an assumption, which derives from ignorance.

So, next, onto the subject.

About the boat on the mountain top, I would very much like to examine it. However, like previously stated, it is a religious thing and the people of Turkey wouldn't allow the archaelogists to examine it closely. Therefore, it remains a mystery.

So really, arguing over the logistics and such won't really do anything. Yet, it is interesting to see this topic brought back up. We shouldn't let this one slip away, it would be a shame =/

-wD



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   


First of all, not ALL Christians discount evolution. I, for example, am a fan of it. Not that I believe in it entirely, but I would definately not rule it out. I am a Roman Catholic, and to make an assumption that simply for that fact I discount evolution is an assumption, which derives from ignorance.


I too am a "fan of it". Evolution - there is so much scientific evidence, yet none to verify the Adam & Eve thing. Interesting thread indeed!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I would like to add what makes anyone think that it was actual in the form at the time. U have heard of cloning and dna. lets say Noah took the dna of all the animals and stored them in the ark. the numbers that was told to him. then he would only have to take enough to eat while on the ark. u have seen the pictures of their technology how great it truly was. i dont believe ours is at that point yet. close but not there. so yes i believe it was the dna.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
They didn't have cloning technology at noahs time. and dont you need a live mother to clone.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
how do u know they didnt have cloning were u there. i didnt say anything about a live mother.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by lonewolf33]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
because the technology hasn't come about until recently. and now your just changing your story every time other prove part of it wrong. well prove the DNA story wrong, and youlll make some thing up about evry animal growing gills so they could live underwater.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
how have i changed my story i havent i had one post about dna. however how can u say technology didnt exist. have u not seen the hyroglyphs in egypt of planes and helicopters etc... or does your own eyes deceive u. there is nothing new under the sun period.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf33
... U have heard of cloning and dna. lets say Noah took the dna of all the animals and stored them in the ark. the numbers that was told to him. then he would only have to take enough to eat while on the ark. u have seen the pictures of their technology how great it truly was. i dont believe ours is at that point yet. close but not there. so yes i believe it was the dna.
Let us say Noah took dna onto the ark, which means that he had the means to extrapolate that dna and clone the aninmals. There were no subsequent global catastrophies after Noah, and as we know, he lived some 350 years after the flood, which means that he decided to keep the secret of dna and cloning from his descendents. Now why on earth would this be? There is only one answer, as with the dna story, you wish to rewrite the book of Genesis as per your imagination.


jra

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Well I just skimmed through most of this thread, so if something like what i'm about to say has already been said, then I apologize.

Not too long ago I was watching TLC (The Learning Channel) And they had a program on, talking about some of the Bible stories and the one I watched was about Noah's arc. I don't remember all the details, but i'll try to explain everything that I remember, it'll probably be a bit disorganised too.

They said things like that Noah might have been a Sumerian and was a trader and that he used small boat's to go up and down the Euphrates river. They mentioned that around there they can get flash floods from heavy rain storms, so that probably happened there. The boat's that they used were raft like and that Noah probably put a bunch of them together. Since he was a trader, he would have had things like cows and chickens. They probably took what animals they had around them, but definately not two of each animal in the whole world.

So once the area became flooded, they figured that Noah and his boat floated out into the Persian Gulf. They made some points about why they thought this, but I don't remember them exactly. One point I do remember is that they said the Sumerian's have one word for when you're talking about the ground below your feet, or the land in your area or when you speak of the whole Earth. So when they say that Earth was flooded, it could have just ment the land around them.

Oh and the whole reason for thinking that Noah could have been Sumerian was, that there are some old clay tablets with some Sumerian writing on them telling a story similar to the one in the Bible. The story we read in the Bible could probably just be an exaggerated version of that story.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by lonewolf33
... U have heard of cloning and dna. lets say Noah took the dna of all the animals and stored them in the ark. the numbers that was told to him. then he would only have to take enough to eat while on the ark. u have seen the pictures of their technology how great it truly was. i dont believe ours is at that point yet. close but not there. so yes i believe it was the dna.
Let us say Noah took dna onto the ark, which means that he had the means to extrapolate that dna and clone the aninmals. [There were no subsequent global catastrophies after Noah, and as we know, he lived some 350 years after the flood, which means that he decided to keep the secret of dna and cloning from his descendents. Now why on earth would this be? ]There is only one answer, as with the dna story, you wish to rewrite the book of Genesis as per your imagination.




Wrong again the tower of Babel happened after that the scattered of all people different languages etc... the tower of Babel means gate a gate to someplace. study



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf33Wrong again the tower of Babel happened after that the scattered of all people different languages etc... the tower of Babel means gate a gate to someplace. study
I am wrong again? How about I play my high and mighty card and tell you that I haven't been wrong yet. But do tell, what does the tower of Babel have to do with anything? shall we examine your DNA capable civilization as regards the Tower of Babel? I say yes. This advanced civilization commenced the building of a tower out of brick and slime for mortar, and that is all we know. Now given your advanced society, brick and mortar would not reach the heavens would it? in fact, even steel has not yet accomplished this, is this not correct? why, we haven't even touched the clouds.

So your point then is?

[edit on 1/6/05 by SomewhereinBetween]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join