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.

 

What if the story of 'Noah' & the Ark was true?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassp83
What a wealth of information everyone has been able to provide. This is definitely something to chew on. Our world is so mysterious.


Not really.

Using science we've been able to discover a lot of things about our planet, and we know quite a bit about it.




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
What if giant purple unicorns existed???

You talk about the flood as if it really happened, but there's ZERO evidence in support of it...hell, on the contrary, we know for a FACT that a global flood didn't happen



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassp83
So, I was just relaxing here, and the movie Evan Almighty comes on, and it just comes to me.

What if this is a true story? But, that instead of just animals, it was loaded with humans too - of each race, in gendered pairs. Perhaps this ark was the way life came to earth? This is how we were 'seeded'. Someone dropped it off one day, once our planet was ready for life & we began to mate, & increase in numbers. This also fits with the Adam & Eve story - one man & one woman, originally.

Just something to think about. I consider myself an agnostic/atheist, but this does make literal sense.



I went on vacation to the west coast of the United States a bunch of years ago. While there me and the family visited to Grand Canyon. One of the tour guides said that scientists proved that the grand canyon was made by a global flood. My question was why was the canyon carved out here but a couple of miles away you still had mountains and flat valleys.

But in all seriousness a global flood is ridiculous. A flood on that scale would require more water than exists presently on the Earth. Not only is there not enough water to cover all land mass on the globe, but what about the animals in the ocean? 40 days and nights of fresh water mixing with ocean water would cause the salinity of the ocean to drop and those species to die. Please direct me towards the part of the bible where god calls on Noah to invent the aquarium. We can't even get Great Whites to survive in modern aquariums. But I guess god could have given Noah the secret to maintaining proper pH.

As for seeding, I suggest you watch this documentary. It has nothing to do with seeding, instead it takes a scientific approach to explaining how humans conquered the globe in about 50,000 years.




Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
most cultures have a story of a great flood, and fossil records certainly indicate sea levels have risen quite a bit in the past.


It makes sense that the flood myth is shared between many cultures, humans have a nasty habit of trading stories with their best bros.


edit on 5/13/2011 by pygmaeus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by cassp83
 


Maybe I'm dense, but how does this "literally" make sense? If this had happened, how could we explain away the fossil record?


That exactly what hydro-logic sorting would do is bury organisms alive and they would fossilize. kinda hard to not get fossils without events like floods or landslides. IF an organism dies on the surface, it either rots, gets eaten... it will not fossilize with all that oxidation going on.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by cassp83
 


No, it makes no sense. We'd have evidence of the seeding because genetics would carry all species currently on the planet to a genetic bottleneck.

...also, the predators would quickly dispatch the prey animals...2 lions and 2 gazelles = 2 lions and 0 gazelles after the lions get hungry.


Well you have to remember that everything ate plants back in the day. You cant just take one part and then throw in modern mechanics and go "Oh see it cant work". If you are going to assume that one part is true, you have to assume the other even if you dont agree with it. after all you cant prove that animals cant eat plants because a lot of them do to stabilize their stomach. also you gotta pay attention to the numbers that were brought on board.

And the bottle neck theory is supported, it just has a different time period stamped on that theory. which could very well be from biased error.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by cassp83
 


There would be a hell of a lot of genetic evidence of this. Fortunately, all the genetic evidence points towards common descent and evolution.


Good heavens! throwing in the word evolution doesnt make it so.. common descent, descent with modification and speciation do not conflict with the flood or modern science. but throwing "evolution" in there like that happened... wow thats very sneaky. just toss it in there like it belongs. yes i understand that the three processes I mentioned above are part of the definition/process of evolution. but that doesnt mean that evolution actually happened. just because i started my car doesnt mean i actually drove it somewhere. (



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by cassp83
 


Maybe I'm dense, but how does this "literally" make sense? If this had happened, how could we explain away the fossil record?


That exactly what hydro-logic sorting would do is bury organisms alive and they would fossilize. kinda hard to not get fossils without events like floods or landslides. IF an organism dies on the surface, it either rots, gets eaten... it will not fossilize with all that oxidation going on.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by cassp83
 


No, it makes no sense. We'd have evidence of the seeding because genetics would carry all species currently on the planet to a genetic bottleneck.

...also, the predators would quickly dispatch the prey animals...2 lions and 2 gazelles = 2 lions and 0 gazelles after the lions get hungry.


Well you have to remember that everything ate plants back in the day. You cant just take one part and then throw in modern mechanics and go "Oh see it cant work". If you are going to assume that one part is true, you have to assume the other even if you dont agree with it. after all you cant prove that animals cant eat plants because a lot of them do to stabilize their stomach. also you gotta pay attention to the numbers that were brought on board.

And the bottle neck theory is supported, it just has a different time period stamped on that theory. which could very well be from biased error.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by cassp83
 


There would be a hell of a lot of genetic evidence of this. Fortunately, all the genetic evidence points towards common descent and evolution.


Good heavens! throwing in the word evolution doesnt make it so.. common descent, descent with modification and speciation do not conflict with the flood or modern science. but throwing "evolution" in there like that happened... wow thats very sneaky. just toss it in there like it belongs. yes i understand that the three processes I mentioned above are part of the definition/process of evolution. but that doesnt mean that evolution actually happened. just because i started my car doesnt mean i actually drove it somewhere. (



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend
"Man was created in God's image."

Man was created in god's image?


Or was God created in Man's image?



As for the story of Noah and the Ark, there's no reason that it couldn't be true. Of course, the English translation does rather garble the facts somewhat (and even in the original, there are 2 versions of the story merged into one). And we have to take into account the way oral (and even written) stories tend to change in the retelling over the centuries.

But, a flood that covered the whole world* and was survived by one man and his family and lifestock who fortuitously were in a boat at the time? Quite possible. In recent years we've seen quite a few floods in various parts of the world which would fit the story quite well. New Orleans, Mozambique, Pakistan, Australia etc


* which usually just meant a valley, or a small region. Bearing in mind how widely neolithic or early bronze age people travelled


edit on 7-6-2011 by Essan because: add comment



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 



Well you have to remember that everything ate plants back in the day.


Evidence needed. No, bronze age myths don't count as evidence.



You cant just take one part and then throw in modern mechanics and go "Oh see it cant work". If you are going to assume that one part is true, you have to assume the other even if you dont agree with it. after all you cant prove that animals cant eat plants because a lot of them do to stabilize their stomach.


Yes, and they gain no caloric value from those plants. I'm not assuming anything here, I'm merely citing the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood and thus no reason to accept it as something within the realm of possibility...especially since there are many impossible elements.



also you gotta pay attention to the numbers that were brought on board.


You're acting as if this is a real story with that phrase, when it really isn't. But enlighten me, how many animals were on board the fictional ark?



And the bottle neck theory is supported,


Again, evidence needed for this claim. Sure, we've seen some species bottleneck, but the bottlenecks occur at many, many different points except in the cases of actual mass extinction events that are all well documented and linked to evidenced phenomenon.



it just has a different time period stamped on that theory. which could very well be from biased error.


Objection, idle speculation to support nothing more than ideological agenda.


That exactly what hydro-logic sorting would do is bury organisms alive and they would fossilize. kinda hard to not get fossils without events like floods or landslides. IF an organism dies on the surface, it either rots, gets eaten... it will not fossilize with all that oxidation going on.


Hydrologic sorting? You mean that idea that somehow organisms magically sort out in a flood to match the fossil record even though there's not a single reason that this should be physically possible?

Why do we not find bunnies in the precambrian?

Looking at this post, I can give you one suggestion: Watch YouTube videos in response to user NephillimFree, because they all refute his ideas.


uhm, when you find a boat in the place the bible says it landed you start to think twice about your assumptions...


Except that no boat has been found...and no specific place is mentioned. Ararat in mentioned, not a specific mountain. It's a region.



zero evidence? really?


Yes, zero evidence. I've addressed all of the possible supporting evidence for a flood here.



have you not noticed that the world is busted up like a cracked egg shell?


...not particularly. I mean, I've cracked an egg shell before and it doesn't form the tectonic gaps or anything resembling that...



plenty of evidence there to support the part of the bible that says that the fountains of the deep were broken up.


Except for all of the evidence that shows that the tectonic plates have been around a hell of a lot longer than human history....



we have oldest organisms and regions that do not exceed the dates given for the flood. (estimated dates).


How is that evidence for a flood? All that's evidence for is that organisms don't live all that damn long. And we have plenty of regions that predate the supposed flood....by eons.



fossils (or rather, you geologic column) could very well have been formed by a flood.


Nope, it really couldn't. Lack of Cambrian triceratops.



poly-strata fossils directly support a flood,


Except that they don't.

Here's one of many great YouTube videos that respond to this and other creationist nonsense claims:





huge erosion marks in places like Iraq that indicate massive amounts of water flow support the flood.


No, they don't. Your lack of understand of even the most basic level of physics is highlighted by this claim. The water from the global flood should have turned Mt Everest to rubble, not merely carved a few slices in the ground.



Grand Canyon supports the flood.


This is why people laugh at creationists:






there are huge amounts of evidence for the flood. its just that people like to find ways to supposedly excuse them from this project we call science.


No, there's no evidence of the flood and only people with a laughably low level of understanding of science think that there is a single shred of it.
edit on 7/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mrjones7885
 


Bingo!!!!! that is the only way that such an endeavor of the magnitude of the bible fable of the arc could be achieved.




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pygmaeus
 


You forgot to mention another thing with the flood stories: Humans have a habit of living next to large bodies of water which in turn have a habit of flooding.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join