Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

my theory why we have such short lifespans


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

#121    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,630 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:39 PM

View Postphysicsolved, on 09 February 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

“MAY …. well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years. “

(note: definition of the word “may.”: to indicate possibility
to express a strong wish:
Conclusion: just because you wish possibilities…doesn’t make it so.)

http://idiom.wishfull thinking : (believing that something is true or that something will happen just because one wishes that it were true or would happen)

“Not appear to be”= they way “I” see it…doesn’t appear to be the way you see it. Yet there is no “appearance” of facts to the contrary.


“This research” ( I assume yours)…proves nothing. Conjectures many things.

‘..Knowledge obtained.”…Then knowledge interpreted based on predisposition.

“..computer functioning.” As a direct result of the functionality of the HUMAN brain. Brain= intelligently designed computer. Question: Does the apes brain work? Rhetorical. Does the ape know how to use the equally designed computer. A computer designed relative to the HUMAN brain? This explains “how” the computer works as well as the human brain. Reiteration: Intelligent design verses chance. The chance that an ape or a fish or a microscopic organism will ever “use” much less “design” a computer.

Chance mentality= “lack of cohesive or relevant”…mental resolve or intellectual fortitude.



“there is MUCH more to becoming credentialed‘..than self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Credentials= “interpret…the meaning.” You said it.

I am not being so “confident and assertive” rather logical, reasonable. Using the power of my computer brain and the functionality of the “observational” eye in processing knowledge so as to deduce reasonable, logical and observational “conclusions.” However I do not relegate others “interpretations” so long as these deductions are in harmony with ..logic, reasonableness and observation.

My “degrees” naturally necessitates my “digress”(degrees) away from the myriad interpretations of “data” that are extant today. Those degrees naturally represent “deviation” from the ability to logically, reasonably and coherently( consistently and accurately) process knowledge and then logically, reasonably and coherently form appropriate conclusions. My posts will stand on there own merits as both “degree of knowledge” as well as “ability to reasonably , logically and coherently” form conclusions relative to such “degree of knowledge”.

This part of your post represents one thing: evolutionary condescension.

“Dating.”…: “As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era.

“"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." …
Not only is carbon 14 dating limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its dating accuracy seems to be in question for anything greater 4 or 5 thousand years. This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago. ( If man had any “chance” of using this “farce dating system” ………..man has went and screwed it up again.)

Your calibration “theory” does not alter these facts to any significant degree.

Question? How does your calibration answer the following questions:

When did the world begin. What date. When did man arrive? What date? How old is the “attique yomin.” How intelligent is he? What was the date of human speech? What was the date when humans realized that fire was hot? What was the date when humans climbed out of the cave into the light? What was the date when a fish meandered to the seashore? What was the duration of time that it took this fish to evolve to higher life form? What time period would have allowed this fish to live that long without rotting( so as to evolve)? What date was it that proteins and amino acids simultaneously/spontaneously “came to be” ( one without the other precludes “one or the other”) etc…

Does your “dating methods” (utterly deficient) ..answer these questions?

You are correct: “there are a number of other methods that are utilized.” to vainly attempt to “crutch up” evolutionary dogma. A dogma that could not be appropriately validated even if a great sequoia tree were the crutch.

You have provided no, “corroborative substantiated” proofs for your position. Thus until you do so it would be quite unusual for you to ask for such from me as if you have already validated yourself and your own positions. This lack of substantiation should (verses is) also be “apparent to all the readers..” Thus it would seem, due to this reality that , “ you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.”

Sweat ( oops…swede: “Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away..”


I have presented some facts. However, as is  predominately the case most things presented as facts are not FACTS at all. Thus due to that reality most of my posts represent “observation, logic, reasonableness” relative to potentialities verses real proven facts.

Can you be so modest? If not then , “Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.”


.


CALIBRATION..........C A LIBERATION. cALIBRATION= THE SELF ASSURED OPINION THAT THIS WITTY TWEEKING OF "LAUGHABLE DATING PROCESS" SOMEHOW "LIBERATES" MAN FROM THE BELIEF IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


For this and many other examples of complete and utter rubbish you are awarded the Fractal Wrongness Award, First Place, with Oak Leaf Cluster.

Posted Image

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#122    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:42 PM

View Postphysicsolved, on 09 February 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

“MAY …. well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years. “

(note: definition of the word “may.”: to indicate possibility
to express a strong wish:
Conclusion: just because you wish possibilities…doesn’t make it so.)

http://idiom.wishfull thinking : (believing that something is true or that something will happen just because one wishes that it were true or would happen)

“Not appear to be”= they way “I” see it…doesn’t appear to be the way you see it. Yet there is no “appearance” of facts to the contrary.


“This research” ( I assume yours)…proves nothing. Conjectures many things.

‘..Knowledge obtained.”…Then knowledge interpreted based on predisposition.

“..computer functioning.” As a direct result of the functionality of the HUMAN brain. Brain= intelligently designed computer. Question: Does the apes brain work? Rhetorical. Does the ape know how to use the equally designed computer. A computer designed relative to the HUMAN brain? This explains “how” the computer works as well as the human brain. Reiteration: Intelligent design verses chance. The chance that an ape or a fish or a microscopic organism will ever “use” much less “design” a computer.

Chance mentality= “lack of cohesive or relevant”…mental resolve or intellectual fortitude.



“there is MUCH more to becoming credentialed‘..than self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Credentials= “interpret…the meaning.” You said it.

I am not being so “confident and assertive” rather logical, reasonable. Using the power of my computer brain and the functionality of the “observational” eye in processing knowledge so as to deduce reasonable, logical and observational “conclusions.” However I do not relegate others “interpretations” so long as these deductions are in harmony with ..logic, reasonableness and observation.

My “degrees” naturally necessitates my “digress”(degrees) away from the myriad interpretations of “data” that are extant today. Those degrees naturally represent “deviation” from the ability to logically, reasonably and coherently( consistently and accurately) process knowledge and then logically, reasonably and coherently form appropriate conclusions. My posts will stand on there own merits as both “degree of knowledge” as well as “ability to reasonably , logically and coherently” form conclusions relative to such “degree of knowledge”.

This part of your post represents one thing: evolutionary condescension.

“Dating.”…: “As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era.

“"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." …
Not only is carbon 14 dating limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its dating accuracy seems to be in question for anything greater 4 or 5 thousand years. This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago. ( If man had any “chance” of using this “farce dating system” ………..man has went and screwed it up again.)

Your calibration “theory” does not alter these facts to any significant degree.

Question? How does your calibration answer the following questions:

When did the world begin. What date. When did man arrive? What date? How old is the “attique yomin.” How intelligent is he? What was the date of human speech? What was the date when humans realized that fire was hot? What was the date when humans climbed out of the cave into the light? What was the date when a fish meandered to the seashore? What was the duration of time that it took this fish to evolve to higher life form? What time period would have allowed this fish to live that long without rotting( so as to evolve)? What date was it that proteins and amino acids simultaneously/spontaneously “came to be” ( one without the other precludes “one or the other”) etc…

Does your “dating methods” (utterly deficient) ..answer these questions?

You are correct: “there are a number of other methods that are utilized.” to vainly attempt to “crutch up” evolutionary dogma. A dogma that could not be appropriately validated even if a great sequoia tree were the crutch.

You have provided no, “corroborative substantiated” proofs for your position. Thus until you do so it would be quite unusual for you to ask for such from me as if you have already validated yourself and your own positions. This lack of substantiation should (verses is) also be “apparent to all the readers..” Thus it would seem, due to this reality that , “ you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.”

Sweat ( oops…swede: “Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away..”


I have presented some facts. However, as is  predominately the case most things presented as facts are not FACTS at all. Thus due to that reality most of my posts represent “observation, logic, reasonableness” relative to potentialities verses real proven facts.

Can you be so modest? If not then , “Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.”


.


CALIBRATION..........C A LIBERATION. cALIBRATION= THE SELF ASSURED OPINION THAT THIS WITTY TWEEKING OF "LAUGHABLE DATING PROCESS" SOMEHOW "LIBERATES" MAN FROM THE BELIEF IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


Quote

Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

The next few pages cover a broad overview of radiometric dating techniques, show a few examples, and discuss the degree to which the various dating systems agree with each other. The goal is to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly for the Christian community. Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.



Overview

Rocks are made up of many individual crystals, and each crystal is usually made up of at least several different chemical elements such as iron, magnesium, silicon, etc. Most of the elements in nature are stable and do not change. However, some elements are not completely stable in their natural state. Some of the atoms eventually change from one element to another by a process called radioactive decay. If there are a lot of atoms of the original element, called the parent element, the atoms decay to another element, called the daughter element, at a predictable rate. The passage of time can be charted by the reduction in the number of parent atoms, and the increase in the number of daughter atoms.

Radiometric dating can be compared to an hourglass. When the glass is turned over, sand runs from the top to the bottom. Radioactive atoms are like individual grains of sand--radioactive decays are like the falling of grains from the top to the bottom of the glass. You cannot predict exactly when any one particular grain will get to the bottom, but you can predict from one time to the next how long the whole pile of sand takes to fall. Once all of the sand has fallen out of the top, the hourglass will no longer keep time unless it is turned over again. Similarly, when all the atoms of the radioactive element are gone, the rock will no longer keep time (unless it receives a new batch of radioactive atoms).

Page 2.

Keep reading; Radiometric dating for Christians

Please feel free to specifically refute it.


#123    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:15 PM

View Postmegabyte, on 26 January 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

our scientists love the fruit fly because it completes a generation in just 3 weeks and so it is useful when studying what effect a certain substance may have on subsequent generations

could it be that humans have such pitifully short lifespan for the same reason?
[annunaki were supposed to live to age 36000 for example]

could aliens who have been tinkering with our civilization since year dot be using us to study substances over generations before giving it to their own population? someone who lives to age 36000 could study several of our generations after releasing a substance such the plague to see what it does. [yes apparently they saw men in black dressed as grim reapers releasing gas substances around villages prior to that village succumbing to the plague - this was on an episode i just watched called ancient aliens

it is quite obvious from reading ancient writings and also reading about current ufo abduction reports that aliens have always had their own agenda and sometimes it was for our good and sometimes it was not.

I would love to know what others think

We have pretty long lifespans, as compared to most other organisms on earth--Our "natural" lifespan is further modulated by technological know-how. Lifespan is dictated by selection for reproductive success.

Let Matt Ridley and opossums explain (why because they are cute, furry and funny!)

Quote

Evidence for this theory comes from a natural experiment studied
by Steven Austad on an island called Sapelo, which lies about five
miles off the coast of Georgia in the United States. Sapelo contains
a population of Virginia opossums that has been isolated for 10,000
years. Opossums, like many marsupials, age very rapidly. By the age
of two years, opossums are generally dead from old age - the victims
of cataracts, arthritis, bare skin and parasites. But that hardly matters
because by two they have generally been hit by a truck, a coyote,

an owl or some other natural enemy. On Sapelo, reasoned Austad,
where many predators are absent, they would live longer and so —
exposed for the first time to selection for better health after two
years of age - their bodies would deteriorate less rapidly. They would
age more slowly. This proved an accurate prediction. On Sapelo,
Austad found, the opossums not only lived much longer, but aged
more slowly. They were healthy enough to breed successfully in
their second year - rare on the mainland — and their tendons showed
less stiffness than those in mainland opossums.8
The evolutionary theory of ageing explains all the cross-species
trends in a satisfying way. It explains why slow-ageing species tend
to be large (elephants), or well protected (tortoises, porcupines), or
relatively free from natural predators (bats, seabirds). In each case,
because the death rate from accidents or predation is low, so the
selective pressure is high for versions of genes that prolong health
into later life.

Ridley M. 2000. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. Walnut Creek, CA: HarperCollins. 352 p.


#124    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:54 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 09 February 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

For this and many other examples of complete and utter rubbish you are awarded the Fractal Wrongness Award, First Place, with Oak Leaf Cluster.

Posted Image

cormac


Surely not?

Attached Files



#125    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:56 PM

View PostCopasetic, on 09 February 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

We have pretty long lifespans, as compared to most other organisms on earth--Our "natural" lifespan is further modulated by technological know-how. Lifespan is dictated by selection for reproductive success.

Let Matt Ridley and opossums explain (why because they are cute, furry and funny!)



Ridley M. 2000. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. Walnut Creek, CA: HarperCollins. 352 p.


Radiation amplified "stalls" the reproductive processes


#126    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,067 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:25 PM

Just a general reminder here - if you are quoting material from somewhere then please always credit it to the original source/author and only use a small portion of it, don't copy and paste walls of text from other sources on to the forums.

Thank you.


#127    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:49 PM

View Postphysicsolved, on 09 February 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

Radiation amplified "stalls" the reproductive processes


I'm not sure what you mean here, could you expound on this in a clear and concise manner? Also, since its easy for many people to forgot the science they learned during their schooling years, when you claim what scientists or "evolutionists" claim can you be sure to reference that?


#128    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,112 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 09 February 2011 - 05:21 PM

View Postphysicsolved, on 09 February 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

Surely not?
I agree.

Not with the Oak Leaf Clusters, please.  It should be with the Oak Leaf Cluster****s.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#129    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,721 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 09 February 2011 - 05:54 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 09 February 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

For this and many other examples of complete and utter rubbish you are awarded the Fractal Wrongness Award, First Place, with Oak Leaf Cluster.

Posted Image

cormac

Delightful.  :D It's been quite some time since you've graced a poster with the FWA, cormac.

Then again, very few posters spend so much time claiming to be familiar with the scientific method and research methodology while at the same time petulantly dismissing the scientific method and research methodology, and writing page after page of dense posts devoid of corroboration but filled top to bottom with incoherent rubbish.

Rarely has the Fractal Wrongness Award been so richly deserved!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a note to physicsolved, who I've been avoiding as of late, for obvious reasons: Even you can see now how trashed you're credibility is. You've garnered no support and indeed have raised nothing but acrimony and derision. This is one reason I've been quite recently. I'm not here to raise my own stress level. This forum is supposed to be about discussion and debate. You've engaged in neither. All you've done to date is ridicule and dismiss other posters while doing nothing to bolster your own arguments in a reasonable and logical way. So I for one suggest, either engage us in mature debate or go back to posting in your ghost town "animal determinatives" thread where you can continue to delight in your own voice while causing no one else any trouble. :tu:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I'm not usually this cross, even with some of the more vexing posters at UM. It's not often that a poster brings out the worst in me.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#130    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,538 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 09 February 2011 - 06:04 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 09 February 2011 - 05:54 PM, said:

Wow, I'm not usually this cross, even with some of the more vexing posters at UM. It's not often that a poster brings out the worst in me.



:lol:

Sorry, kmt.

Just.Could.Not.Resist!

And, for double the fun, it's even (tangentially) relevant to this thread!

"Why is he still alive?"

Edited by Leonardo, 09 February 2011 - 06:07 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#131    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,721 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 09 February 2011 - 06:54 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 09 February 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:



:lol:

Sorry, kmt.

Just.Could.Not.Resist!

And, for double the fun, it's even (tangentially) relevant to this thread!

"Why is he still alive?"

:lol: It's very apropos, Leonardo. Pretty well sums it up for all of us, eh?

"He vexes me. I'm terribly vexed."

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#132    digitalartist

digitalartist

    Psychic Spy

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York State

  • I'm Done

Posted 09 February 2011 - 09:23 PM

View Postphysicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 01:19 AM, said:

If you copy the entire Greek scriptures ( verses the erroneous term "new testament)..then copy the psalms and proverbs then you will have accomplished what I did at the age of 24. I was not inspired of God..rather inspired by the many relevancies to be gleaned from this very exceptional book. A book that was inspired of God relative to 40 other humans..and not me.

I have equally studies the sciences of astronomy and physics. As well I have found much reward in studying anthropology, ancient history, linguistics, anatomy, art..as well geometry.

As I previously stated: If the waters covered all the high mountains as stated in the bible, the ark, floating at the height of Mt Everest, more than 2 miles above Mt Ararat, could not have come to rest on Mt Ararat and that if the ark did come to rest on Mt Ararat as stated in the bible, the level of the ocean would have been more than 2 miles lower than the top of Mt Everest and thus the waters could not have covered all the high mountains.

Both statements are said to be true in the bible but it is an impossibility for both statements to be true, indicating a conflict that throws doubt on the supposed historical accuracy of the bible.

With your knowledge and learning, perhaps you can answer or refute this instead of just dismissing it as you previously have.


#133    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:57 PM

View Postdigitalartist, on 09 February 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

As I previously stated: If the waters covered all the high mountains as stated in the bible, the ark, floating at the height of Mt Everest, more than 2 miles above Mt Ararat, could not have come to rest on Mt Ararat and that if the ark did come to rest on Mt Ararat as stated in the bible, the level of the ocean would have been more than 2 miles lower than the top of Mt Everest and thus the waters could not have covered all the high mountains.

Both statements are said to be true in the bible but it is an impossibility for both statements to be true, indicating a conflict that throws doubt on the supposed historical accuracy of the bible.

With your knowledge and learning, perhaps you can answer or refute this instead of just dismissing it as you previously have.

That would be an easy one. If one assumes the water was at one point high enough to cover Everest, then it satisfies the "whole Earth under water" thing. Now, as the water recedes, Noah & Co could not see Everest so when they hit Ararat, it was the highest point from their perspective. As for where the water went, I propose Sham-Wows.

Not that I think it actually happened, just that that would explain it. Of course, that pretty much flies in the face of scripture. It's like when I mention to fundamentalists that for whomever wrote the myth, Noah's ark was plenty big enough for all the animals they were aware of in the Middle East a couple thousand years ago - they just turn purple and start talking about 'kinds'...


#134    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 10 February 2011 - 01:07 AM

View Postsam12six, on 09 February 2011 - 10:57 PM, said:

That would be an easy one. If one assumes the water was at one point high enough to cover Everest, then it satisfies the "whole Earth under water" thing. Now, as the water recedes, Noah & Co could not see Everest so when they hit Ararat, it was the highest point from their perspective. As for where the water went, I propose Sham-Wows.

Not that I think it actually happened, just that that would explain it. Of course, that pretty much flies in the face of scripture. It's like when I mention to fundamentalists that for whomever wrote the myth, Noah's ark was plenty big enough for all the animals they were aware of in the Middle East a couple thousand years ago - they just turn purple and start talking about 'kinds'...


reference: The Deluge Story in stone, by B.C Nelson, 949, p. 156
Reference: The Flood in the light of the Bible, Geology, and Archeology, by A.M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69


#135    digitalartist

digitalartist

    Psychic Spy

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York State

  • I'm Done

Posted 10 February 2011 - 01:20 AM

View Postsam12six, on 09 February 2011 - 10:57 PM, said:

That would be an easy one. If one assumes the water was at one point high enough to cover Everest, then it satisfies the "whole Earth under water" thing. Now, as the water recedes, Noah & Co could not see Everest so when they hit Ararat, it was the highest point from their perspective. As for where the water went, I propose Sham-Wows.

Not that I think it actually happened, just that that would explain it. Of course, that pretty much flies in the face of scripture. It's like when I mention to fundamentalists that for whomever wrote the myth, Noah's ark was plenty big enough for all the animals they were aware of in the Middle East a couple thousand years ago - they just turn purple and start talking about 'kinds'...


That would be a possible answer except if one counts the days and dates in then bible the same day the waters begin to recede at a steady pace the ark comes to rest on Mt Ararat.  For that to happen the water level would have to drop 13,000 feet in one day or part of a day but then the rate would be reduced because, again according to the bible, the time between the ark coming to rest on Mt Ararat and the mountain tops becoming visible is 74 days, yet according to the bible (once again) the rate of level decrease was steady, not a sudden drop followed by a more steady rate.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users