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.
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by hetman
Byrd - You're asking a lot for this evidence to survive a global catastrophe like the flood. If you accept the assumption that all things continue in the same way as they always did as truth, then your observations could be deemed accurate.
There's no evidence of a global flood. In fact, to the contrary, there is plenty of geological and archaeological and written evidence that there was NO flood.
Flood theorists generally pinpoint the date sometime about 2,500 BC or thereabouts, and are completely unaware that records from Egypt and other ancient civilizations exist for that time period. No flood.
No global sedimentation, distribution of material, burial, distribution of old bones, etc -- no proof of an ancient flood covering the world. We know what it would look like, because we have evidences of local floods at different times and different places... and some yearly floods (like the Nile.)
There is no evidence of a global flood in any of the living ancient things (like the Bristlecone pine, the redwoods, and certain other ancient plants that live to be thousands (and tens of thousands) of years old.
Originally posted by Buehlar
Byrd, Can you prove the flood never happened? I don't think you can.
Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
ok so now please explain how Noah the only survivor of the flood had children of different colours
one red
one yellow
one black
one white
etc
Originally posted by Nygdan
Since the whole of genesis is a allegorical story anyway why beleive any of it?
Originally posted by Buehlar
First of all, it is obvious that this thread deals with a "bibilical" issue.
So, a non-believer should already be "annoyed" simply by reading this thread topic.
The fact that a "non-believer", with no intention of understanding the bible, would even take an interest in reading this thread is mindboggeling, to say the least.
May I ask what sparked your interest in such a topic?
Originally posted by spaceman16
From a "non-believers" point.
I still read the bible. Its interesting, and to me is nothing but another book. The reason i read? Simply because its a book of great debate. Why did so many people pick up "The Da'Vinci's Code" and "Angels and Demons"? Because it was in a large debate. People, religious or not, are curious.
Im not annoyed by the topic, in fact it brings a good question. Challenging those who believe and those who don't believe.
You make alot of assumptions "friend".
Originally posted by Buehlar
Astyanax posted an explanation about the base 10 for the ages. Very interesting and a good theory as to the topic, and makes the most sinceout of the matter.
S/He didn't treat all other posters like they were stupid and had answers of no value, but why make the statement that its "the correct answer".?
Originally posted by Buehlar
It's not "another book" by all means. It's not a history book nor a science book or any other book up for debate, and shouldn't be considered a such. Yes, its makes for a great debate and is just another book to you, but, its a religious text and has been catagorized as such since it's existance. How do you debate this book in a positive way? It can't be done? Or can it? It's a book of faith weather you believe the book or not.
Originally posted by Buehlar
My whole point exactaclly! Whats the purpose in the "challangeing" of those who "believe" and those who "don't believe"?
Hasn't this "challinging" belief system lead to most wars throught history?
Originally posted by Buehlar
You say I make "assunptions"?
I don't doubt that many non-believers read it out of curiousity or debate. Most non-belivers who have read have believed after reading it. Thats fact. Hence all the believers.
I clearly stated that a non-believer "with no intention of understanding the bible". Weather one falls in that catagory or not is based on ones own understanding alone. No harm intended here.
Originally posted by Buehlar
Is this a "challenge" to be correct?
If it is, let me know as to contine would be pointless because history proves that there is no winners on either side of this "challenge".
Originally posted by Buehlar
Get my point?
Originally posted by Buehlar
I value all ideas and theories but to state them as facts concerning a delicate matter as it may pertain to "any" faith based text is out of the realm of the debate itself.
Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
well you need to be aware that there are 23 Biblical Patriarchs in the Bible with silly age claims and there were 23 kings of Kish in the Sumerian king list who's length of reigns need to be adjusted by converting them to base 10.
that and the fact that at the time the bible was written the Hebrews who wrote it were living in Babylon and would have had access to the Kings list. Its been proven over and over that most of the old testament is simply plagiarised texts from the same source anyway. Didn't i see a line by line comparison between excerpts of the flood story in Gilgamesh and the story fo Noah around here somewhere that conclusively proves that that part of the Bible was heavily plagiarised from a story 1500 years older from a polytheist religion
Mesopotamia, which also happens to be where most of the old testament stories are actually set. All except the only one that has never had any archaeological evidence corriborating it. The Exodus
Originally posted by Buehlar
This in no way would mean that the Hebrews stole and/or plagiarised these accounts from Sumerian records and Epic accounts of a flood etc. to make up their own version. Just facts to back it up. To Daniel, it would be proof of his past and support for his known oral/traditional herritage.
Or am I completely wrong on this?
Originally posted by Buehlar
reply to post by spaceman16
Okay spaceman
Fair enough buddy
You win, I won't/can't compete with ya
Chalk this one up to ya.
Truce?
Originally posted by GriBiT
I've always been intersted in the long life spans spoke about in the bible. Life spans of 100's of years. Over 900 in the case of Adam. Then they slowly decrease over time. After "Noas flood" they decreased even more until they reached the average age that we have now (70 years give or take). Whenever I think of this I recall a book by Irwin Ginsburgh, Ph.D. and his book "First, Man. Then Adam!". He reviews Genisis from a different perspective. Implying that travelers (with long life spans) crashed and were marooned here and mixed with humans here on Earth, then over time the "Alien" age span decreased as it was diluted over the many generations until modern times. He also goes into other aspects of Genesis like that when God said l"let there be light" it may have refered to the big bang. Also passages such as something refering to old scripture saying Adam came to the third planet from the sun, as if from outside out solar system. My excerpts don't do his thesis justice, but you get the general idea.
Wanted to get this started while I continued research on this.
This link shows a chart of ages in the bible as a start.
On this site they have a different hypothethis, but I don't fully agree with it. They talk about the age dropping after "Noas flood" but it took quite a while for the life span to slowly decrease. I really added this link just to show a visual of the life spans in the bible in a chart.
Bible Life Span Chart
I really want to find something online to link to about the book "First, Man. Then, Adam!" I'll keep searching. In the mean time....Your thoughts?