It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Thoughts on the Flood and Evolution.(Thanks to Flyers Fan)

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Its not that I am speculating. The language implies that whatever happened is what made the Earth into its state in Genesis 1:2

Kind of funny/weird to leave that "something" out and just left to be implied just out of the gates in the bible (while also telling two different creation stories --Gen. 2) seeing as how it's telling about something as important as the beginning of everything.

It's like (God saying) "Ok, I'll give you an infallible sentence, make you guess about things implied, then give you some more infallible sentences. Then next chapter, just to keep you entertained and to confuse you, I'll give you a different account"

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Please post your research in fact please post the original language with a translation if you think it makes a difference.

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Please note, at not one point in his interpretation did he refer to the original language.

You haven't been quoting things in ancient Hebrew, Sumerian, or Persian, Esperanto, or anything but modern English....unless English was the original language '6,000" years ago.

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:13 PM

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Please post your research in fact please post the original language with a translation if you think it makes a difference.

I will compile a post with my opinion on the matter for you. However, notice I am not the only person who has stated that. Obviously the research is out there..

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:14 PM
Is it possible that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, but to be used as a guide? Stories that teach lessons don't have to be true to teach.

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:16 PM

network dude
Is it possible that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, but to be used as a guide? Stories that teach lessons don't have to be true to teach.

Anything is possible I suppose, but the amount of prophecy that is unfolding now is to overwhelming for me to believe that it was just a bunch of metaphors.

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:21 PM


reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Please post your research in fact please post the original language with a translation if you think it makes a difference.

I will compile a post with my opinion on the matter for you. However, notice I am not the only person who has stated that. Obviously the research is out there..

Well I hope you post more than just your opinion. You said you had done research that is what I hope you post. I also know there have been multitudes of people who have tried to reconcile the bible, but to date it none of their findings have been able to hold up to scrutiny so I am hopeful you may be able to achieve what many great minds have not been able to do throughout history.

I look forward to reading your future post on the matter.
edit on 25-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:39 PM
We were created by aliens. We've evolved over the years only because multiple species have made sweet passionate love to one another. No ark has been found because 'noah' and friends were taken off the planet during the 'flood'. And this was all caused by the flying spaghetti monster. Nobody knows the truth. The bible is NOT the truth. Nor is the theory of evolution because there is no concrete proof of either.

Loving one another seems to feel good so how bout we do that... And respect one another. If you believe in God then have faith that you'll know everything once you die. If you believe in the flying spaghetti monster then chow down in some epic spaghetti angels. if your a douch that likes to hurt others and sucks at life then change.

Stop arguing about it and just LIVE!!

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by drz400

The theory of evolution is one of the if not the most explored,tested, and confirmed subjects in the sciences however I think you were actually referring to the hypothesis of abiogenesis in which case you would be correct in saying it has not been confirmed.

Hypothesis is akin to the layman's definition of theory for more information on the subject see my signature.

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:07 PM

reply to post by BELIEVERpriest

This geologist happens to think that continental drift is the result of a sudden axial shift rather than a long drawn out process: What will you say about him? Are his ideas not scientific enough?

W?here does he mention the flood or the earth "swelling in girth"?

He actually doesnt mention the flood. His work is on proving that continental drift occured suddenly rather than over time. I think the flood could explain that since water rose from below as well.

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:17 PM

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

When these verses are read in the original language a gap of time between the two verses implied. So, "God created the heavens and the earth..." something the text doesn't tell us occurs, and then"...the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

So in that implied gap, it's ok to just speculate about this "gap" and then tell others "Something happened and so the Earth had to be restored, but it doesn't say that. You just have to fill in the blanks and gaps of god's word". ??

What you are reading there is the re-creation of the Earth after that event.

Says who? Not this word of god book.
edit on 2/25/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

There are some verses in the OT indicating that there was once an angelic civilization headed by Lucifer dwelling on earth before man was created. At some point the planet was probably desolated by Lucifer's rebellion.

Im at work at the moment, so I'll have to find those verses for you later, but basically God restored earth for the puropse of sustaining man.

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:32 PM
Agree with Grimpachi that the theory of evolution is way more proven than people think. I would point anyone to the arctic fox domestication experiments where arctic foxes were bred for their docile behaviour around humans.

Back to the flood, if my neighbour sprayed DDT on his garden to kill everything in the garden, plant and animals because he had a few bees in his garden that he did not like, I would think he was crazy. So the idea that a supreme being would kill all different animals (who had done nothing wrong) for the sake of some bad humans seems just vindictive. IMHO, this is actually quite evil behaviour, and so if people have faith in this happening, then what sort of God are they worshipping.

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 09:33 PM
God created Evil, as well as good........kind of a weird dichotomy actually.....but it says so in the bible I read....kind of like bragging about it too.....

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

If the Flood never happened, why is the planet covered in 75% water?

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:35 AM


I mean if natural selection works as Science says wouldn't leaving say the Dog population to breed on its own(rather than selective breeding) get us much closer to the desirable traits everyone wants? I mean breeders can only choose from traits existent in that gene pool, and if all the desired traits exist in that gene pool, does it not mean that the animal was once a perfect specimen?

edit on 25-2-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

Not necessarily, the varied breeds of dog we have created through selective breeding were bred to fill certain roles in human societies. Not selectively breeding the first dogs would not give us a single perfect dog for every situation. Because like the wolf and coyote they used a generalist approach to successfully surviving. Basically it is like this without people tending herds of sheep a dog in nature would have no need to specialize to ever work them.

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:50 AM

Ok, So basically you say God cannot exist because the Flood never happened.

This was your opening statement. And it's dead wrong. Just because someone acknowledges that the flood didn't happen, that has NOTHING TO DO with if someone believes in God or not. You assume that someone HAS to literally believe in the Old Testament folklore and mythology in order to believe in God. That's absurd.

YOU challenged people to prove that the bible is incorrect. It has been proven. You must acknowledge that on your 'challenge' thread. You called it a Game of LOGIC . Well .. once again ... here is the LOGIC .. and the LOGIC says the much of the Old Testament is NOT literal.

PANDO Tree Colony

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.

Science Daily
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.

Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.

Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?

If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.

(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)

(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.


Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution for you

Creationism vs Biodiversity

Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.

National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.

Noahs Ark Doesn't Float

Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.

Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.

Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.

We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our discoveries.

If Noahs Ark happened - 16 million critters would have been on the ark. That's impossible.
If Noahs Ark happened - there would be polar bears and penquins and armadillos (etc) living in Turkey.
If Noahs Ark happened - human DNA diversity would be magnitudes less than what it is today.
If Noahs Ark happened - the human race couldn't reproduce and survive with only 3 pair of reproducing humans.
If Noahs Ark happened - the ancient civilizations of India would be disturbed. They aren't.
If Noahs Ark happened - where did all the water come from?
If Noahs Ark happened - where did all the water go? Not into space. Impossible.
If Noahs Ark happened - the Earths crust would have collapsed from the weight. It didn't happen.
If Noahs Ark happened - the oceans would be DEAD. And so would we because we can't live without them.
If Noahs Ark happened - the 100,000 year old reefs would be destroyed and dead. They are not.
If Noahs Ark happened - the sea algea would have all died from severe lack of sunlight for months and months, but we know from core samples it survived fine.
If Noahs Ark happened -we would have evidence of it in the ice core samples from the poles. There is no evidence in the samples.

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:55 AM


I would like to leave by asking anyone to give me an example of an observed positive mutation, because as far as I know one has never been shown to occur rather only inferred.

edit on 25-2-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

By "positive", I assume you mean that in the sense of natural selection, that is, a mutation that enhances survival and the ability to reproduce. So we have observed the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus mutate to a new strain of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Analysis of the genome of the new strain shows a mutation of a resistance gene, mecA, which stops β-lactam antibiotics from inactivating the enzymes (transpeptidases). We have observed six new Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) genomic islands

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:11 AM

You are again assuming that the atmosphere of the Earth worked exactly as we know it today. The Earth was closer to its perfect state. So I believe it probably functioned differently back then.

The flood supposedly happened 4,300 years ago - if you take the bible literally.
The atmosphere did NOT function differently then.
It didn''t "function differently" 5,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or 50,000 years ago, etc etc
Science has proven this.

People of faith should always remember this...Debating with atheists is like playing chess with pigeons.Also remember...
Not to cast your pearls among swine!

People of faith should always remember this ... taking the Old Testament myths as literal truth is wrong.
Oh ... and I"m not an atheist.

How do we know that the Earth is not hollow to some degree?

Ever hear of GRAVITY?
And if it were hollow, the crust would have crushed and collapsed from the weight of the oceans.
And it absolutely would have collapsed under the weight of the alleged 'flood'. It didn't.
Hollow Earth Nonsense

Another set of scientific arguments against a hollow Earth or any hollow planet comes from gravity. Massive objects tend to clump together gravitationally, creating non-hollow spherical objects such as stars and planets. The solid sphere is the best way in which to minimize the gravitational potential energy of a physical object; having hollowness is unfavorable in the energetic sense. In addition, ordinary matter is not strong enough to support a hollow shape of planetary size against the force of gravity; a planet-sized hollow shell with the known, observed thickness of the Earth's crust, would not be able to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium with its own mass and would collapse.

Someone on the inside of a hollow Earth would not experience a significant outward pull and could not easily stand on the inner surface; rather, the theory of gravity implies that a person on the inside would be nearly weightless. This was first shown by Newton, whose shell theorem mathematically predicts a gravitational force (from the shell) of zero everywhere inside a spherically symmetric hollow shell of matter, regardless of the shell's thickness. A tiny gravitational force would arise from the fact that the Earth does not have a perfectly symmetrical spherical shape, as well as forces from other bodies such as the Moon. The centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation would pull a person (on the inner surface) outwards if the person was traveling at the same velocity as the Earth's interior and was in contact with the ground on the interior, but even the maximum centrifugal force at the equator is only 1/300 of ordinary Earth gravity.

The mass of the planet also indicates that the hollow Earth hypothesis is unfeasible. Should the Earth be largely hollow, its mass would be much lower and thus its gravity on the outer surface would be much lower than it is.

templar knight
So the idea that a supreme being would kill all different animals (who had done nothing wrong) for the sake of some bad humans seems just vindictive. IMHO, this is actually quite evil behaviour, and so if people have faith in this happening, then what sort of God are they worshipping.

... and if God thought that would wipe out all the evil in humanity .. He screwed up.
People continued to do evil, even right after the supposed flood.
Noah got drunk ... passed out naked ... Ham saw him naked (or some say Ham homosexually raped Noah) ... and Noah went bat-crap crazy cursing Hams children because Ham 'saw him naked' .... LOONS.

If the Flood never happened, why is the planet covered in 75% water?

If the flood happened ... where'd the water go? MILES high of it? It can't evaporate into space.

edit on 2/26/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:38 AM

So you are telling me that this is impossible?

Yes. 3 pair of related (the men were all brothers) reproducing human couples from 4,300 years ago could not produce the DNA diversity seen today .. the numbers of humans seen today ... and they would have 'inbred to death' quickly due to genetic faults of incest. The three pair of reproducing humans from 4,300 years ago couldn't have magically transformed into negroids, caucasians, and asians ...

Humanity was down to 10,000, with perhaps 1,000 pairs of reproducing couples, and it caused a bottleneck in human evolution.

The Tragedy of Children Born with Genetic Defects Because the Parents Are Cousins

Better Health - Genes and Genetics

Consanguinity is often associated with factors such as:
Cultural and religious practices
Isolated groups (such as migrants) who prefer to marry within their own culture
Low socioeconomic status
Living in rural areas.

Related parents are more likely than unrelated parents to have children with health problems or genetic disorders. This is because the two parents share one or more common ancestors and so carry some of the same genetic material. If both partners carry the same inherited altered (mutated) gene, their children are more likely to have a genetic disorder....

Degrees of relationship
Relatives are described by the closeness of their blood relationship. For example:
First-degree relatives share half their genetic information. First-degree relatives include a person’s siblings, non-identical twin, parents and children.
Second-degree relatives share one-quarter of their genetic information. Second-degree relatives include a person’s half-siblings, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, and grandparents.
Third-degree relatives share one-eighth of their genetic material and include a person’s first cousins, half-uncles, half-aunts, half-nephews and half-nieces.
The closer the genetic relationship between the parents, the greater the risk of birth defects for their children.

Incidence of birth defects in children of related parents
A child of unrelated parents has a risk of around two to three per cent of being born with a serious birth defect or genetic disorder. This risk is approximately doubled (to between four and six per cent) for children of first cousins without a family history of genetic disorders. The risk of birth defects or death for children of first-degree relatives – for example, parent and child or brother and sister – rises to about 30 per cent.

PDF - Having Children When Parents Are Blood Relatives

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:49 AM

Can you prove to me that this is what happened? No. It is circumstantial, and you infer that is how those events played out. How do we know the Summerians didn't transpose their flood story from oral traditions of the Hebrews? We don't, but it is no less accurate then what you are assuming.

Summerians date to 5,000 bc.
Abraham, the father of the Hebrews, supposedly lived around 2,000 bc.
And the story about him wasn't written down until 500 bc ... so we don't even know if he really existed.

The flood story of Giglimesh dates to approximately 3000 B.C
The flood story of Noahs Ark dates to approximately 2300 BC

Giglimesh came first. Obviously ... and LOGICALLY (your word) ... the Hebrews 'borrowed' the Giglimesh story and put their own Hebrew twist to it.

Side by side comparison of Giglimesh and Noahs Ark

edit on 2/26/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in