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.

 

Testing The Bible Scientifically Part 3 / The Genesis Flood and More

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 

That explanation was written by an ignoramus. There are so many howlers in it one hardly knows where to start. There was a shell of water encircling the Earth? No evidence for such a thing exists. You may also wish to calculate how much water is necessary to cover the whole Earth up to the top of Mount Everest, nearly 30,000 feet above present sea level. That is far more water than can be found anywhere on Earth today. The whole explanation is ignorant and implausible to the ultimate degree.

As for the idea that the laws of physical optics were different before and after the Flood – I thought you said the Bible supported what you called 'the theory of uniformity'?

And the reason why the ages of people mentioned in Genesis are so long is well known – it is because of confusion between the decimal and hexagesimal arithmetical systems used by Mesopotamian scribes at different times in history. Noah, if he really existed, probably lived to the age of about 40 or 50. That was greybearded old age in those days. Besides, this is not really an objection to the flood story. There are far more serious ones.

For example, putting all the animals on Earth into one big boat. How big was this boat? Bigger than a supertanker? Was it divided up into different micro-ecologies, so that hippopotamuses and camels, cheetahs and arctic foxes, giant pandas and slime moulds could all survive their forty-day incarceration? What happened to all the fish in the sea if the flood was freshwater? Sea-dwelling fish die in fresh water. And freshwater fish die in salt water. So how come piranhas and tuna both survived the Flood? What about plants – did Noah have greenhouses and seed banks and plant nurseries aboard the Ark too? Now how big was it – the size of three supertankers?

There are millions of species of plants and animals on this planet, counting just the ones that live on land, or fly. A global flood would have destroyed them all, except for Noah's arkdwellers and a few exceptional birds, like the frigate bird and the albatross, which can stay aloft for weeks on end.

Oh, and what about food for all these millions of animals? Was the three-supertanker-sized Ark followed by a flotilla of supply ships containing tens of thousands of tons of fodder, meat, and live animals for the snakes and other creatures who cannot eat killed food?

I really don't know why I'm bothering with all this. Five minute's intelligent thought makes it clear to anyone that the Noah's Ark story cannot possibly be true. Okay, maybe some Mesopotamian farmer foresaw a great flood (not hard to do when one lives on a flood plain between two rivers) and built himself an ark for his family members and farm animals to ride it out in. His foresight was celebrated and out of it grew a great legend, which uneducated people still believe to this day. But that's about the size of it. No worldwide flood, no extermination of animals and humans, no rejigging the laws of physics to make rainbows.

Yuck. I feel soiled and stupid just for having considered this moronic subject.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
"There were giants in those days, and after...." Bible - Genesis - the bit about Noah... Verse/Chapter etc. to be filled in by people that care about that sort of thing.

This one troubles me.
Giants/Nephelim/etc. are an abomination unto God.
The flood was to rid the world of all abominations unto God.
If the giants we are about after, he didn't succeed.
But he's infallible!
Or...there were Giants on the boat.
In which case, God loved them.
Which one is it?

Very confused. Nobody seems to be able to explain this one.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I mean no personal harm but the only thing soiled is your curt and arrogant attitude and your unkindness. Anger and bitterness are soiling things to everyone they touch..



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Koalas too.

Noah obviously found a source of very specific eucalyptus (Koala are very picky), cultivated it for a while to have a forty day/night supply. The Koalas made their way across vast distances (including massive oceanic stretches, deserts, and predator filled areas) to the Ark, rode in the boat, then afterward made their way from Turkey back to Australia (obviously with a supply of eucalyptus) without incident and predation. It's magic.

By the way, are Koalas clean or unclean?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


I mean no personal harm but the only thing soiled is your curt and arrogant attitude and your unkindness. Anger and bitterness are soiling things to everyone they touch.

Never mind my anger and bitterness. Either respond to the actual points I have made or admit your claim is false and your thread has failed.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Your anger is not needfull. But whatever makes you get through. As far as me admiting that the thread or claim is false why in the world would I call the truth a lie and the lie a truth to please you or anyone else? You want me to dialoge with you so you can tell me Im wrong and your right. That doesn't make any sense does it? I may reply to you on the Off topic requests but I will do so when I am ready and only hesitate for one reason.

The reason is simple. I have and will again provide you with enough reasonable evidence to support an equally believeable counter claim if you will. I have already done this for you and you blow it ooff simply because it involves creation rather than The primevil puddle that evoloutionists think we came from. You hanging from trees by our hairy tails as we searched for bananas. That makes sense to you and a supreme being ( God ) defending his handy work is a joke to you and I have to give you this , You have to have more faith than most people do because you have nothing but your faith in evoloution to back up your beliefe in it.

You can never defend it. Its all speculation and blind hope. At leaste I have a Bible that tells me what happened and how.I will answer one of the issues you mentioned. When that is weighed on , then I will answer the next, but Im not going to get into a race of time to answer questions for an athiest who is set in his ways regardless of the equall and otherside of the coin. You mentioned that there wasn't enough water to flood the entire earth 15-17 cubits BTW The Bible says, over the tops of the mountains. This is the third time I will give you a link to equally oppose and thats just as believeable as your disbelief in things that are equal "for belief", It becomes a simple issue. Its and issue of Faith or the lack of faith cause there is nothing more to defend. I believe in creation and you dont. Fine That don't make me wrong and certainly will never make you right , no matter what you claim or how angry you get. Here is enough equal believeable evidence BTW its at the bottom of he page and it has several "paragraphs" called "Conclusion" and one more Bible aid wont hurt,


The quantity of water suspended above the atmosphere under the Biblically described conditions provides the perfect answer as the mechanism for the global Flood. If this water layer became astronomically unstable and collapsed it would temporarily submerge the continental plates—not by volume of water alone, but by the accumulated pressure the freefall collapse would cause (Figure 1b) ~ 2000 pounds per square inch (psi) on the whole Earth’s surface. It is also calculable that a global pressure of 2000 psi would rupture the Earth’s crust.

Note however that this pressure will not build up on objects where the water runs off, as for example the Ark, or any object on the Earth’s surface. It is only on the Earth itself, from which the water cannot ‘run off,’ that this cumulative pressure applies. The effect of this pressure on the earth’s crust by the collapse of the aqueous shell is consistent with the scriptural description that “all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up,” (Genesis 7:11).

So far, the scriptural model of the earth before the Flood and the consequences of the release of water from the atmosphere are consistent with what science would expect to happen given the conditions described in the


www.one-gospel.org...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


I mean no disrespect to you, but look at your statement:


This is the third time I will give you a link to equally oppose and thats just as believeable as your disbelief in things that are equal "for belief", It becomes a simple issue. Its and issue of Faith or the lack of faith cause there is nothing more to defend


Your thread is about the science of these matters. You can't ask people to discuss this information in the terms of science and then pass people's explanations off as a matter of lack of "faith". Science is not built upon faith.

I have read your link several times.......It does not add up.......It is not science. It's trying us use science to fix the holes in a theory that has more holes than can be fixed.

Answer this: Where was all the food for the animals and humans on the ark for the 150 days before the waters went down? There is not enough room to hold that much food in the ark without it sinking. How were the people and animals fed after they left the ark?......there wouldn't have been any food left on earth after the flood.


edit on 31-12-2011 by isyeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


I mean no disrespect to you, but look at your statement:


This is the third time I will give you a link to equally oppose and thats just as believeable as your disbelief in things that are equal "for belief", It becomes a simple issue. Its and issue of Faith or the lack of faith cause there is nothing more to defend


Your thread is about the science of these matters. You can't ask people to discuss this information in the terms of science and then pass people's explanations off as a matter of lack of "faith". Science is not built upon faith.

I have read your link several times.......It does not add up.......It is not science. It's trying us use science to fix the holes in a theory that has more holes than can be fixed.

Answer this: Where was all the food for the animals and humans on the ark for the 150 days before the waters went down? There is not enough room to hold that much food in the ark without it sinking. How were the people and animals fed after they left the ark?......there wouldn't have been any food left on earth after the flood.



edit on 31-12-2011 by isyeye because: (no reason given)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
CherubBaby Replies:::

I appreciate your opinion and your beliefs I respect because I know that you have your reasons for what you believe.I just don't want to misunderstand you or have you misunderstand me at this point. We all deserve a fair judication with evidence before hand.

I am not going to try to quote you word for word in this next statement but you will agree I am sure that I am reading your words correctly. In fact I will quote you on this one. you say



Your thread is about the science of these matters. You can't ask people to discuss this information in the terms of science and then pass people's explanations off as a matter of lack of "faith". Science is not built upon faith


You see your wrong when you say Science is not built on faith. Let me explain why I say what I say.
When science takes a calculation that is based on Uniformity and then runs the clock in reverse for millions of years and then says "That's how long it took" and we were monkeys in trees also in those figures that they speculate on, Science at that moment and for those reasons becomes religion. Because it is based on Science's faith that they are correct speculations, But they could and cant defend it with proof . Its a matter of faith and when science uses faith to tell you something , it is preaching religion and not fact and the RELIGION of science is foolishness and thats all there is to it. Why do I say it is foolishness ? Because I believe the bible is more reliable than a man claiming god got it wrong etc etc and the guess work of calculations are more important than trusting the creator of the universe. I will at that point trust Gods word over any man or woman that is trying to talk of things they have NO physical touch or say so in and were not recorded as witnesses in those vast spans of time they try to decypher. There is a thing called devine catastrophy. I wont get into that but maybe another time

I dont want to go off topic but as a friend and I mean friend people claim to be christians or good catholics and most of them are. but you get a few that do terrible things or make terrible comments that wrong and dark and then every cone that is a believe is a freak all of a sudden due to human mistakes. You what, if my father treated me wrong as a child, does that mean all fathers are a joke? I hope for one thing for you for me for all of those on this earth, I hope come through the trials broken dreams that are so rampant on this earth that deserves better.
edit on 31-12-2011 by CherubBaby because: typo



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 

At least IMO, science is not a religion, but that is really isn't the point. And that does not answer my question:


Answer this: Where was all the food for the animals and humans on the ark for the 150 days before the waters went down? There is not enough room to hold that much food in the ark without it sinking. How were the people and animals fed after they left the ark?......there wouldn't have been any food left on earth after the flood.


I respect your beliefs, and those of others, but the fact is that the ark could not have done what it is stated in the bible (as most people read it). My job is to calculate weights of loaded and unloaded barges based upon displacement. The biblical figures are impossible to be accurate about because of lack of information, but based upon simple logic, I can tell you that the weight of the wood, the "gopher wood" used in the ark, the weight of animals, humans, and suppplies would be more than enough to cause the ark to sink.

One important thing to look at is the meaning of "gopher wood". There is NO direct reference to what this is for a reason. It is not WOOD. What is a gopher?....an animal that digs in the ground?...the meaning of wood in the bible is "plank" or an object of contsruction. The meaning of "gopher wood" is an object of construction from the ground.....It is stone.....the ARK is a construction of stone....otherwise known as hills, ziggurats, pyramids, or temples.....look up the biblical meaning of "daughter".
edit on 31-12-2011 by isyeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

You see your wrong when you say Science is not built on faith. Let me explain why I say what I say. When science takes a calculation that is based on Uniformity and then runs the clock in reverse for millions of years and then says "That's how long it took" and we were monkeys in trees also in those figures that they speculate on, Science at that moment and for those reasons becomes religion.


I don't mean to come across as being unkind, but the ignorance displayed in the above is utterly astounding.

Science is built upon observation, not faith. Science is evidence based, religion is faith based. It's the reason why the majority of the religious people on this planet don't see a conflict between science and religion. You views aren't christian views at all, simply those of a small part of middle America. Most of the world's christians cringe at your literal interpretation of the bible, for a good reason - they're simply wrong, and come across as uneducated nonesense.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by isyeye
 


Are you telling me the bibles definition of the ark resulted in the pyramids or the ark was built by Noah and was built out of stones?
Im sorry but it strikes me kinda funny. As far as the food for the animals. I dont know and havent given it thought but I do know that God could create the world so maybe a little food for the animals wouldnt tire Him out too much. BTW there were plenty of fish to be eating after this happened I am sure.
What are you saying? You think the bible is written by fairytail prone people that just made all this up.

For those who are interested, The bible has many accounts of credible witness's. Just because we cant call them or supenea them into court to give testimony, doesnt mean they are little characters in some fairytail book. The bible is not a fairytale, The creation alone tells anyone with its spectacular beauty and variaty of life that only a person fixated on the fear of belief in Him and his glory could think this is an accident. I will say it again. Go in peace and stop trying to kill the only one who will save you or leave you in the end.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Instead of looking ONLY at the words in your bible, why don't you study some of the information given to us about those words from 1,000's of years of mystery schools.

Yes, I am saying the ARK was made of STONE, but it was not a boat. Look around the world and you will see clear evidence of the contruction of mounds, ziggurats, and pyramids everywhere. The bible is an outline of the importance and uses of the objects, how they function, and the history behind them. It is also a survival manual telling how to builld energy devices and air purification systems.

To make a long story short....the bible describes a battle for water, and the role that the mounds and other features played in the story. The story of Adam and Eve is about the contruction of stone mounds, the rib taken from "Adam" was stone removed for the beginning construction of "Eve". Later in the story God (otherwise known in the story as the EARTH) caused localized flooding on the earth, and the story of Noah is about them taking refuge inside the mound for protection.


Also look at the word prevail used to describe the flood:

pre·vail/priˈvāl/Verb: 1.Prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious: "it is hard for logic to prevail over emotion".
2.Be widespread in a particular area at a particular time; be current: "an atmosphere of crisis prevails".


by the second definition, it does not mean a GLOBAL flood, but one in a particular area

edit on 31-12-2011 by isyeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by isyeye
 


Respectfully. This isn't going to end up on "The Mothership" is it? I just need to know what to wear if i'm going to be flying..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by isyeye
 


Respectfully. This isn't going to end up on "The Mothership" is it? I just need to know what to wear if i'm going to be flying..



Absolutely not...No aliens ships required...I in no way believe that I'm 100% correct in my theories, but I use my common sense and understanding of the universe when trying to understand these subjects. I know things like this conflict greatly with the popular conception of the meaning of the bible, but there is ample evidence from many sources that show these things. There is validity and truth in the bible, but it IS encrypted. I don't know all of the encryption, but just enough to make sense of the whole thing, and when put into the context I was taught, the discrepencies of the bible make sense. They explain oddities such as incest and long life.

I do not expect you to believe anything I am stating, but simply ask that you judge what I say honestly, as I do with your words. The best place I can tell you to understand what it is I'm talking about is the importance of the rainbow. I'll have to look up the exact place it is stated, but the bible says there are three types of rainbows, the red, the white, and the rainbow of ascension.

If you will look closely at these words:


2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.


The Spirit of God is water mist, or fog......this is part of the foundation of how the bible is encrypted, and the foundation of the three rainbows. The bible is filled with passages such as these giving clues to it's hidden truth.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


sciencefairproject.virtualave.net...

Please review this link on how the scientific method works. You can apply it to almost any fact about evolution or whichever science you choose to scrutinize. The problem with what you are claiming is this: Lets pretend your link proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that certain aspects of the bible are true. It still would not prove god, or any supernatural events depicted in the bible or any other mythology book out the thousands. If you want any skeptical person to put their faith in the bible, you need to show them actual scientific evidence of god himself, scientific evidence of creation, or scientific evidence that the bible was indeed written by god not a series of authors over a thousand+ year period; not links that do not even follow the scientific method. What you have is a hypothesis with a possible way it could happen, without even leaving mathematical or scientific experiment results. We know the bible does have some stories in it that refer to historical events, but it doesn't mean the entire thing is 100% literal word for word. Generalizing evolution the way you did shows that you haven't even read the very basics of it, yet you've instantly dismissed it.


This is scientific evidence? You can't even prove these people existed. It is based 100% on stories on in ancient book. Not objective, not scientific. Making something into a cute little chart doesn't make it scientific.


Scientific Fact
No rainbows will be observed while the water layer persists because the diffusion of the sun’s rays will not instigate the macroscopic polychromatic refraction effect we recognize as a rainbow. This has only been known since the pioneering work of Isaac Newton in 1666.

Conclusion: It must therefore be a complete coincidence that the Bible, written long before the work of Newton, describes this exact scenario.


Scientific fact? Show me the experiments associated with this that prove there was ever a water layer above the earth. Scientific facts do not involve wild assumptions.


Scientific Fact
Were such a layer of water to prove astronomically unstable, its collapse to Earth would result in a global Flood. It would not require a depth of water greater than the height of existing mountains to submerge the continents because they would be suppressed by the water’s weight. For the same reason, such a submersion would be temporary because the continental plates would re-emerge as a new equilibrium was established.

Conclusion: Coincidentally the Bible also describes such an event where continents are completely submerged by a deluge of water and then subsequently re-emerge without any additional mechanism intervening to remove the water.


Experiments? Data to verify that the water's weight would crush existing mountains? That this ice layer could even exist in the first place? That god did it? Are they trying to say that in biblical times people had the ability to monitor the entire world at once? Nope. Not even close to scientific fact.

These are just the first few things I noticed, but it's all hypothetical. "This could have happened this way. If this was possible, then this happened here, and could explain this etc etc etc"

Please post some peer reviewed science journals on this subject. I'd appreciate it. Please don't accuse me of being angry, arrogant, atheist or anything else. I'm merely trying to figure out where the facts actually are, and explain why the link is not scientific in the least. I haven't seen anything close to scientific evidence, yet. There's a reason this stuff got laughed out of court when trying to pass off as science. There's a reason Kent Hovind is in jail.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I don't know where to start so I guess I will pick a spot. There I found one. I think the only thing that Is important for me to say is simply this. BTW I can't prove it either. I started this thread with the hope it would be a reminder of why people who believe in God can do so with confidence because the Word in which they believe has and will stand the test of time. I didn't write the thread to "Convert" people who are unconvinced of the Validity of Scripture.or the existance of God
It is not my job to make or break anyones journey in life. What a man or woman believes is not under my control.
To sum. I hope that the reminder of my purpose in creating this thread be helpfull to the believing heart.I also hope that the words of Scripture given to those who struggle or suffer persecution or any other form of misery for His name sake be richly rewarded for their faith. To those that do not believe or deny his truths then let them remain where they are.

On the subject of proof?? I can only say it this way and I will say it as a blanket statement .to all who are require nothing less than absoloute proof Have you (Meaning you the people) Have you ever loved someone with all your heart? Have you ever been loved by someone else? Regardless of your answer. I say "Very good now prove it.!!!!!! "

Have a gr8 day..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BagBing
 


Ignorance? I may be ignorant but I know one thing for sure. I only use one account. Your obviously a psychic still in training but can you tell me what that means during your next change?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Barcs
 


I don't know where to start so I guess I will pick a spot. There I found one. I think the only thing that Is important for me to say is simply this. BTW I can't prove it either. I started this thread with the hope it would be a reminder of why people who believe in God can do so with confidence because the Word in which they believe has and will stand the test of time. I didn't write the thread to "Convert" people who are unconvinced of the Validity of Scripture.or the existance of God
It is not my job to make or break anyones journey in life. What a man or woman believes is not under my control.
To sum. I hope that the reminder of my purpose in creating this thread be helpfull to the believing heart.I also hope that the words of Scripture given to those who struggle or suffer persecution or any other form of misery for His name sake be richly rewarded for their faith. To those that do not believe or deny his truths then let them remain where they are.

On the subject of proof?? I can only say it this way and I will say it as a blanket statement .to all who are require nothing less than absoloute proof Have you (Meaning you the people) Have you ever loved someone with all your heart? Have you ever been loved by someone else? Regardless of your answer. I say "Very good now prove it.!!!!!! "

Have a gr8 day..


Back to scientific proof...................... you still haven't explained the ethnic diversity in 12k years or where the giants came from post flood if Noah's offspring knew full well that God had wiped everyone off the planet for such abomiations.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Barcs
 


I don't know where to start so I guess I will pick a spot. There I found one. I think the only thing that Is important for me to say is simply this. BTW I can't prove it either. I started this thread with the hope it would be a reminder of why people who believe in God can do so with confidence because the Word in which they believe has and will stand the test of time. I didn't write the thread to "Convert" people who are unconvinced of the Validity of Scripture.or the existance of God
It is not my job to make or break anyones journey in life. What a man or woman believes is not under my control.
To sum. I hope that the reminder of my purpose in creating this thread be helpfull to the believing heart.I also hope that the words of Scripture given to those who struggle or suffer persecution or any other form of misery for His name sake be richly rewarded for their faith. To those that do not believe or deny his truths then let them remain where they are.

On the subject of proof?? I can only say it this way and I will say it as a blanket statement .to all who are require nothing less than absoloute proof Have you (Meaning you the people) Have you ever loved someone with all your heart? Have you ever been loved by someone else? Regardless of your answer. I say "Very good now prove it.!!!!!! "

Have a gr8 day..


Okay. The title of your thread is "the bible scientifically" but it contains no science at all. You essentially just admitted its all faith, and I have no problem with that, just don't label it science when its clearly not. This is what I am debating, not your personal beliefs. You are welcome to believe whatever you'd like. Science and faith are completely separate concepts and should be treated as such.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.

And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.

In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns


I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?

edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join