• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Therefore?

Therefore, the Pentateuch is an evolved and text composed mostly after ~700-600 BCE. The sources were Babylonian, Ugarite and Canaanite texts, and merged and combined with Hebrew traditions and history, both real and mythical.

The Hebrew tribes of Judah evolved from Canaanite/Ugarit pastoral tribes of the Hills of Judah. The Hebrew written language evolved from Ugarit/Canaanite written language, as evidenced by the earliest known primitive texts. Exodus as described never took place as described, and

The earliest known textual parallels in style and form found in Psalms and Proverbs are found in Ugarit/Canaanite cuneiform texts.

From: Ugarit and the Bible

"These texts, as mentioned above, are very important for Old Testament study. The Ugaritic literature demonstrates that Israel and Ugarit shared a common literary heritage and a common linguistic lineage. They are, in short, related languages and literatures. We can thus learn very much about the one from the other. Our knowledge of the religion of Ancient Syria-Palestine and Canaan has been greatly increased by the Ugaritic materials and their significance cannot be overlooked. We have here, as it were, an open window on the culture and religion of Israel in its earliest period.

3. From the Literature of Ugarit to the Literature of the Bible.

The style of writing discovered at Ugarit is known as alphabetic cuneiform. This is a unique blending of an alphabetic script (like Hebrew) and cuneiform (like Akkadian); thus it is a unique blending of two styles of writing. Most likely it came into being as cuneiform was passing from the scene and alphabetic scripts were making their rise. Ugaritic is thus a bridge from one to the other and very important in itself for the development of both.

One of the most, if perhaps not the most, important aspect of Ugaritic studies is the assistance it gives in correctly translating difficult Hebrew words and passages in the Old Testament. As a language develops the meaning of words changes or their meaning is lost altogether. This is also true of the Biblical text. But after the discovery of the Ugaritic texts we gained new information concerning the meaning of archaic words in the Hebrew text.

One example of this is found in Proverbs 26:23. In the Hebrew text Mygys Psk is divided just as it is here. This has caused commentators quite a bit of confusion over the centuries, for what does �silver lips� mean? The discovery of the Ugaritic texts has helped us to understand that the word was divided incorrectly by the Hebrew scribe (who was as unfamiliar as we are with what the words were supposed to mean). Instead of the two words above, the Ugaritic texts lead us to divide the two words as Mygysps k which means �like silver�. This makes eminently more sense in context than the word mistakenly divided by the Hebrew scribe who was unfamiliar with the second word; so he divided into two words which he did know even though it made no sense.

Another example occurs in Ps 89:20. Here the word rz( is usually translated �help� but the Ugaritic word �gzr� means �young man� and if Psalm 89:20 is translated this way it is clearly more meaningful.

Besides single words being illuminated by the Ugaritic texts, entire ideas or complexes of ideas have parallels in the literature. For example, in Proverbs 9:1-18 wisdom and folly are personified as women. This means that when the Hebrew wisdom teacher instructed his students on these matters, he was drawing on material that was commonly known in the Canaanite environment (for Ugarit was Canaanite). In point of fact, KTU 1,7 VI 2-45 is nearly identical to Proverbs 9:1ff. (The abbreviation KTU stands for �Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit�, the standard collection of this material. The numbers are what we might call the chapter and verse). KTU 1.114:2-4 says-

hklh. sh. lqs. ilm. tlhmn

ilm w tstn. tstnyn �d sb�

trt. �d. skr. y�.db .yrh

�Eat, o Gods, and drink,

drink wine till you are sated,

Which is very similar to Proverbs 9:5;

�Come, eat of my food and drink wine that I have mixed�.

Ugaritic poetry is very similar to Biblical poetry and is therefore very useful in interpreting difficult poetic texts. In fact, Ugaritic literature (besides lists and the like) is composed completely in poetic metre. Biblical poetry follows Ugaritc poetry in form and function. There is parallelism, qinah metre, bi and tri colas, and all of the poetic tools found in the Bible are found at Ugarit. In short the Ugaritic materials have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of the Biblical materials; especially since they predate any of the Biblical texts."

Next: Ugarit/Canaanite polytheistic theology in the OT.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Therefore, the Pentateuch is an evolved and text composed mostly after ~700-600 BCE. The sources were Babylonian, Ugarite and Canaanite texts, and merged and combined with Hebrew traditions and history, both real and mythical.
Of course, but note that your tiresome pedantry is more than a little underwhelming.

The Hebrew tribes of Judah evolved from Canaanite/Ugarit pastoral tribes of the Hills of Judah.
Except, perhaps, for those that did not.

The Hebrew written language evolved from Ugarit/Canaanite written language, as evidenced by the earliest known primitive texts.
WOW!

Exodus as described never took place as described, and ...
You're almost entertaining. :D
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
As long as you are prepared to accept that humans just a few thousand years ago lived for hundreds of years. As long as you are prepared to accept that the conflicting versions of the genealogies can somehow be reconciled. As long as you are prepared to accept that Adam, Noah and the rest were real people who had real offspring - exactly as the Bible lists them. How then can you claim the Biblical accounts are symbolic?

Baha'u'llah traces his ancestry back to a character known only from an account that Baha'is themselves interpret as Hebrew mythology.

I have to say that this is, in my opinion, and with all due respect, perhaps the most preposterous Baha'i argument I have seen so far.
Jesus was a real person. However in Bahai view, not everything that is written about Him in the Bible is to be taken literally. For example it is written in Bible that Jesus Resurrected the dead, and cured the blind. In Bahai view, Resurrection means, guiding a spiritually dead person to the truth. Curing a blind, means, a person who is ignorant and misguided was cured by Jesus, in a sense that his spiritual eye became open, and was transformed to a better human. So, in the same way, Bahai Scripture says, Noah and Adam were real person, but not everything written about them in bible are to be interpreted literally. In Bahai View, bible has both literal facts, as well as symbolic expressions.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
This one has been round the block and more here at RF without doubt.

I've always assumed some of these stories to be myths, but I understand that many do not. So lets investigate three stories in particular.

(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?

(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
Should we regard this as literally true? If not what is the significance of it all?

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen or did the author of Genesis have something else in mind?

I've included this in the science and religion category so we could consider the scientific evidence that would support or refute either perspective.

Many people where I live (New Zealand) don't believe any of it, let alone being literally true. I don't live in the USA where many think differently.

I'm a Baha'i who believes in the same God, Bible, and Jesus as the Christians. I view some aspects of the Bible allegorically, whereas my Christian brothers and sisters might interpret literally.

Always happy to have a friendly chat about God's word with my coreligionists or atheists alike.:)
Yes, those stories are myths. It is what people wanted to hear. If, as an example, they were told God created paradise without humans during the time when the earth flourished with life and strange and wonderful prehistoric creatures, they wouldn't like it. Stories had to favor the wonderfulness of humans. And, of course, stories of creation had to center on humans, not ugly prehistoric beasts. How would humans feel superior if they weren't masters over nature?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The ark had 1,396, 000 C.F. of space. That is approximately the CF of - 522 standard box cars.

-There are approximately one million species today.
  • Eliminating all aquatic species there is a need to house about 35,000 animals. The average size of these animals would be about the size of a sheep.

  • The average boxcar can hold approximately 120 animals of this size.

  • It would only take 146 boxcars to hold these animals. So there is plenty of room in the ark.
Also there is a good chance the animals were not full grown adult. That would give them even more room IMO, God may have put the animals in a state of hibernation.

There is a good chance all of the species were in the area at that time. .

First, let us consider God's directions in regards to the Ark.

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Genesis 6:14-16

It is not particularly detailed. I doubt if too many researchers in this area would believe that the technology to build such a massive ship existed and so would imagine many problems in regards to a vessel of this magnitude.

We don't know what the gopher wood actually is, and evidently there is just one mention of it in the bible. Pitch is the material used to water proof it.

Lets get our dimensions sorted out first.

Length - 300 cubits = 137.2 meters = 450 feet

Breadth - 50 cubits = 22.9 meters = 75 feet

Height - 30 cubits = 13.7 meters = 45 feet

If we calculated a square box with these dimension (which of course it couldn't possibly be): 1,518,750 square feet or 43,000 m3.

Here's an interesting comparison:

noahs-ark-versus-titanic.jpg




Your welcome. You may have guessed I enjoy discussing the Bible and giving conservative view some exposure.

Its good to have a YEC contributing so prolifically. The reason I started the thread was to better understand the arguments either way.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The ark had 1,396, 000 C.F. of space. That is approximately the CF of - 522 standard box cars.

-There are approximately one million species today.
  • Eliminating all aquatic species there is a need to house about 35,000 animals. The average size of these animals would be about the size of a sheep.

  • The average boxcar can hold approximately 120 animals of this size.

  • It would only take 146 boxcars to hold these animals. So there is plenty of room in the ark.
Also there is a good chance the animals were not full grown adult. That would give them even more room IMO, God may have put the animals in a state of hibernation.

There is a good chance all of the species were in the area at that time.

So God built an Ark and took two of every animal on board. (the Bible says that he brought seven of each clean animal and seven of each bird, although at that stage God had not yet distinguished between clean and unclean animals.) The obvious problem with this story, is there isn’t a boat big enough to fit all the animals of the world on board. How did all these animals reach Noah’s Ark? How did the kangaroos (who can’t swim) arrive? YECs claim that all the animals came to Noah through some God given migration instinct. But how did they survive the journey? Animals have specific diets, so if they moved location they probably would not have access to it and starve. Travelling the length of the globe is a journey few animals could make, they simply don’t have the endurance. They would have to travel through foreign climates and expose themselves to diseases and animals that they had no defence mechanism against. Having the entire animal kingdom converge on a single spot is going to cause lots of problems?

How did all the animals fit on board? Scientists have named almost 2 million species, but all agree that this is only a tiny fraction of the true amount as there could be between 5 and 30 million species. They couldn’t all fit on the boat, especially when we know how big it actually was. How were the animals stored, after all many animals eat each other and therefore would have to be kept separate? What about the vast quantities of food that would have to be stored to feed them. What about the carnivores who will only eat fresh meat? Some snakes only eat living animals. Was there a stock of live mice on board as food? What about herbivores who only eat plants, how was their food kept fresh for the entire year they were at sea? What was to prevent food from spoiling? What about cleaning up after the animals? How could less than 10 people tend to thousands of animals when zoos have staffs of hundreds to deal with smaller numbers? What about ventilation and sunlight? Thousands of animals tightly packed into a confined space is a situation rife for disease. Few animals are able to adjust to captivity even where it mimics their natural life. How could they survive in dark, cramped conditions? How were animals from incredibly cold climates stored together with animals from incredibly hot climates? If a single animal died, that entire species would go extinct. What happens if something goes wrong?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The ark had 1,396, 000 C.F. of space. That is approximately the CF of - 522 standard box cars.

-There are approximately one million species today.
  • Eliminating all aquatic species there is a need to house about 35,000 animals. The average size of these animals would be about the size of a sheep.

  • The average boxcar can hold approximately 120 animals of this size.

  • It would only take 146 boxcars to hold these animals. So there is plenty of room in the ark.
Also there is a good chance the animals were not full grown adult. That would give them even more room IMO, God may have put the animals in a state of hibernation.

I see some YECs try to get around the problem of obvious lack of space by saying that insects were not brought on board (as most species are insects this greatly reduces the number). However, if they weren’t on board then they would have drowned and we wouldn’t have any insects today. Some YECs even claim that the animals were infants when they were brought on board, therefore taking up less space. But infants need their parents to mind them and teach them how to survive. How else will they know what food to eat and how to avoid predators? Infants are also the most likely to catch disease and be the victim of predators, so are not the best choice for the future of a species. YECs also argue that not every animal was on board but rather one from each family group. So instead of the hundreds of different varieties of snakes, there was simply two snakes. In order to believe this you must believe evolution can occur in an extremely short space of time, only a few thousand years in this case. Evolutionary scientists know this is impossible which is why it is strange to hear creationists argue evolution didn’t happen, except in this case.

Another TEC argument is based on comparing how many sheep can fit into a rail carriage as you have done. However not all animals are sheep. Sheep are docile and do not fight even when in confined spaces. Most animals are not like this and will probably fight. The necessity of separating animals means you cannot squash them together. While you can compact sheep for short journeys, you cannot keep them like that for a year. Animals need to move around, have fresh air, and sunlight or they will die. A year of no movement, possibly in the dark, would leave them in a greatly weakened state and prone to disease.

There are other problems. For example, it is claimed that sea life would be fine as they would not be affected by a flood. This ignores the obvious fact that some fish live in fresh water and others live in salt water. A giant flood would upset this balance and kill a great many of the fish. The rising ocean level would also significantly change marine life’s environment and cause great disturbance. Life that bases itself in shallow water would also probably be destroyed.

Wooden boats are not that resilient and sunk quite easily by modern standards. What are the chances that a wooden boat built by a single family who may not have had any experience could survive the greatest flood in history? The Bible says that the flood covered even the highest mountain. If the Ark was higher than Mount Everest, then what about the atmosphere and temperature? Where did all the rain come from? After the flood where did the water go? Enough water to cover Mount Everest could not just soak into the ground or evaporate.

What happened after the flood? When the animals were released, how did they know where to go? How did they get from Mesopotamia to the Amazon? What did they eat considering all the plant life would be dead after a year under water? What did the carnivores eat if killing a single animal would cause that species to go extinct? How could anything grow if the entire Earth is covered in sediment? There would have been no fresh water anywhere on Earth so all life would have died. Many scientists reckon that any species that contains less than 20 members will go extinct, so how did only 2 animals in each species repopulate the Earth? Surely this would have required mass inbreeding that would genetically destroy a species?
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
There are clearly significant aspects of the stories outlined from Genesis that are predominantly myth, if not entirely. We know this because the scientific evidence overwhelming tells us they can not be literally true. The myth has meaning, and there is truth in that myth. Prophets and Great Spiritual Teachers that come after make use of that mythology to convey spiritual truths.
...and to claim descent from a mythological character apparently???

There are clearly biblical stories that we can examine and say with relative certainty they did, or did not happen.
Indeed - like Noah's fathering an ancestor of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah at 500 years old - and yet all of these Manifestations are claimed to be descendants of Noah's son Shem. Which would you say that was - did happen or did not happen? Because if it really did happen, then there is possibly some merit to their claims of divine intervention and the stories are not symbolic after all. If the stories are symbolic and the events claimed in them did not really happen then whose son was Shem really? Presumably, if the idea that was put forward somewhere by one of your Baha'i friends is correct, then this (Shem's birth) would be 500 years into the Noachian "Dispensation" (not 500 years into Noah's life) and Noah himself would have been long dead by the time Shem was born. But then the problem repeats with the next generation, Shem fathering Arphaxad at 100 and then recurs with Abraham's birth when Terah was 70 and, best of all, Abraham fathering Ishmael in his 80s then Isaac when he was 100 and, by the supposed ancestress of Baha'u'llah, Keturah, several sons all of whom were born after Isaac was married - so Abraham would have been probably over 120 years old. If we take the age thing with a pinch of salt, the whole genealogy has to be questioned because how can you even put Abraham and, say, the sons of Keturah in the same period of time? But Baha'u'llah is supposed to have descended from at least two of Abraham's sons both fathered at a highly improbable age. It doesn't matter to me whether this is true or not, but it did, it seems, matter sufficiently for Abdu'l Baha to have made the claim. And if Abdu'l Baha was the infallible interpreter of Baha'u'llah's message, presumably he would not have been mistaken about the lineage of his father or the mythological nature of the tales of his supposed ancestors. Would he?

So which is it? Did happen or did not happen?

Then there is a huge narrative that we are unable to determine whether it literally happened or it didn't. Some of the biblical genealogy falls in this category.
I would say none of the Biblical genealogies are remotely reliable. They report impossible longevity, highly improbable ages for fathering and mothering offspring, are internally within any particular version or translation of the various genealogies incompatible and seemingly incomplete (failing to account for either sufficient time to match the "historical" narrative or failing to report sufficient generations to fill the time) - reporting conflicting names and numbers of generations and there are even more inconsistencies between the earliest manuscripts of different versions. For example the chronologies of the various versions of the Genesis 5 genealogy (Masoretic, Samaritan and Septuagint versions) differ by thousands of years. They bear all the hallmarks of having been invented to provide support for very doubtful priestly, kingly and prophetic lineages. Please do not ask me to present all the evidence - its common knowledge and you can easily check it for yourself just by reading the various genealogies in the Bible.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
First, let us consider God's directions in regards to the Ark.

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Genesis 6:14-16

It is not particularly detailed. I doubt if too many researchers in this area would believe that the technology to build such a massive ship existed and so would imagine many problems in regards to a vessel of this magnitude.

We don't know what the gopher wood actually is, and evidently there is just one mention of it in the bible. Pitch is the material used to water proof it.

Lets get our dimensions sorted out first.

Length - 300 cubits = 137.2 meters = 450 feet

Breadth - 50 cubits = 22.9 meters = 75 feet

Height - 30 cubits = 13.7 meters = 45 feet

If we calculated a square box with these dimension (which of course it couldn't possibly be): 1,518,750 square feet or 43,000 m3.

Here's an interesting comparison:

noahs-ark-versus-titanic.jpg






Its good to have a YEC contributing so prolifically. The reason I started the thread was to better understand the arguments either way.
What did I get you into? You do seem to be enjoying yourself and learning a lot.

Of course I have one question: Were the insects brought in two by two? Okay, another question: What about plants? They were left to drown? Or, did seeds float off all around the world and then germinate? Okay, for sure last question: What is the second largest wooden ship and what did they have to do to reinforce it to keep the ship from falling apart?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
When you say some, can you please elaborate?

Hi Segev, Thank you for sharing your thought. I thought very few would be interested in this topic but apparently not.

Another areas of biblical mythology would include a literal resurrection of Jesus.

too many people believe it literally no matter where you look at.
I Think this number should stand on zero :)

I would hope so too, although for different reasons.:)
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Hi Segev, Thank you for sharing your thought. I thought very few would be interested in this topic but apparently not.
Another areas of biblical mythology would include a literal resurrection of Jesus.
I would hope so too, although for different reasons.:)
As long as the outcome would be that people will stop accepting things without sufficient evidence as "objective truth",
The final "goal" is not important.
:)
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
The Dead Sea scrolls are simply the oldest known texts of the OT. That is the evidence

Not true. Archeologist date tghe Dead Sea Scrolls between 250 BC and 68 AD. Every book in the OT is dated later than than that.

What extra Biblical archeological evidence can you cite and provide that any text of the Hebrew Bible existed prior to ~600 BCE?
There is no evidence of Hebrew writing in the form used in the Dead Sea scrolls except for the silver scrolls and a few Stella in primitive Hebrew found in the Hills of Judah.

Still waiting . . .

I could if it was necessary but all we need is a little common sense. Who wrote most of the Psalms? When did he live? Who wrote Ecclesiastes ? When did he live.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
First, let us consider God's directions in regards to the Ark.

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Genesis 6:14-16

It is not particularly detailed. I doubt if too many researchers in this area would believe that the technology to build such a massive ship existed and so would imagine many problems in regards to a vessel of this magnitude.

Then they would be wrong. For some reason non-believers like to think man started out as ignorant cavemen but one of Cains sons invented the forge and another invented music and musical instruments(Gen 4:21-22).

The ark was not as picture din your photos, it was a barge. Anyone could follow the very simple directions God gave to build it. Even a caveman.

We don't know what the gopher wood actually is, and evidently there is just one mention of it in the bible. Pitch is the material used to water proof it.

WE don't need to know what gopher wood is.

Lets get our dimensions sorted out first.

Length - 300 cubits = 137.2 meters = 450 feet

Breadth - 50 cubits = 22.9 meters = 75 feet

Height - 30 cubits = 13.7 meters = 45 feet

If we calculated a square box with these dimension (which of course it couldn't possibly be): 1,518,750 square feet or 43,000 m3.

Why couldn't it possible be?

Here's an interesting comparison:

noahs-ark-versus-titanic.jpg






Its good to have a YEC contributing so prolifically. The reason I started the thread was to better understand the arguments either way.


The comparison are irrelevant. Many thing necessary on a ship were not necessary on the ark.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
What did I get you into? You do seem to be enjoying yourself and learning a lot.

Of course I have one question: Were the insects brought in two by two? Okay, another question: What about plants? They were left to drown? Or, did seeds float off all around the world and then germinate? Okay, for sure last question: What is the second largest wooden ship and what did they have to do to reinforce it to keep the ship from falling apart?

All great questions. Perhaps in the story of Noah for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, feet to walk the spiritual path, who have been resurrected from the death of unbelief, there is an important spiritual message, and we are not to take these verses of Genesis literally.

Jesus refers to the flood and Noah's ark in the book of Matthew:

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:38-39

These verses appear symbolic. There comes a time in life when we must abandon the old for the new. We must live lives that are good and moral and based on the right foundation, otherwise we will be caught up in powerful forces that will harm us. Many of us have experienced the dark night of the soul when we must decide where to find shelter and guidance.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
So God built an Ark and took two of every animal on board. (the Bible says that he brought seven of each clean animal and seven of each bird, although at that stage God had not yet distinguished between clean and unclean animals.) The obvious problem with this story, is there isn’t a boat big enough to fit all the animals of the world on board.

I explained that in my last post. There was more than enough room.

How did all these animals reach Noah’s Ark? How did the kangaroos (who can’t swim) arrive? YECs claim that all the animals came to Noah through some God given migration instinct. But how did they survive the journey?

I explained that also.

Animals have specific diets, so if they moved location they probably would not have access to it and starve.

Be specific--what animals need a special diet?

Travelling the length of the globe is a journey few animals could make, they simply don’t have the endurance. They would have to travel through foreign climates and expose themselves to diseases and animals that they had no defence mechanism against. Having the entire animal kingdom converge on a single spot is going to cause lots of problems?

What makes you think all of the animals we not in the vicinity and the distribution w made after the flood?

How did all the animals fit on board? Scientists have named almost 2 million species, but all agree that this is only a tiny fraction of the true amount as there could be between 5 and 30 million species.

All don' agree with that, Some estimae ther is only 1 million land animals and birds.

They couldn’t all fit on the boat, especially when we know how big it actually was.

I have already showed you there was more than enough room and we know exactly how big it was.

How were the animals stored, after all many animals eat each other and therefore would have to be kept separate?

The ark had 3 floors. Separation would not be a problem.

What about the vast quantities of food that would have to be stored to feed them. What about the carnivores who will only eat fresh meat? Some snakes only eat living animals. Was there a stock of live mice on board as food? What about herbivores who only eat plants, how was their food kept fresh for the entire year they were at sea? What was to prevent food from spoiling? What about cleaning up after the animals? How could less than 10 people tend to thousands of animals when zoos have staffs of hundreds to deal with smaller numbers? What about ventilation and sunlight? Thousands of animals tightly packed into a confined space is a situation rife for disease. Few animals are able to adjust to captivity even where it mimics their natural life. How could they survive in dark, cramped conditions? How were animals from incredibly cold climates stored together with animals from incredibly hot climates? If a single animal died, that entire species would go extinct. What happens if something goes wrong?

Many of your comments are embellishments and not based on facts. I have explained how could happen. Nothing I say will convince you other wise. If you don't believe it, your god is too small.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Of course, but note that your tiresome pedantry is more than a little underwhelming.


Except, perhaps, for those that did not.

WOW!


You're almost entertaining. :D

So so song and dance routine with dogs and ponies, but not a coherent constructive response. This was in response to those who assert that Genesis, and other books of the Pentateuch are literal and all the events occurred as written, such as Noah's flood and Exodus.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Then they would be wrong. For some reason non-believers like to think man started out as ignorant cavemen but one of Cains sons invented the forge and another invented music and musical instruments(Gen 4:21-22).

It is one thing to have musical instruments and a forge, another to suddenly build the biggest wooden ship.

The ark was not as picture din your photos, it was a barge. Anyone could follow the very simple directions God gave to build it. Even a caveman.

There is very little guidance as to how to construct the Ark, compared to the construction of the temple of Solomon. You show me how the ark should look based on the guidance in Genesis.

The comparison are irrelevant. Many thing necessary on a ship were not necessary on the ark.

In fact much more things on the Ark would not have been necessary on the Titanic, such as food and creating the necessary environment for the care of each animal. You seem to believe its possible to place animals in close proximity to each other, with bare wooden surroundings, and feed them grain and water. Each animal has adapted to a unique habitat over millions of years.

Be specific--what animals need a special diet?

I'm not sure you understand basic biology and ecology. Lets look at the school level education.

Every living organism needs to find some way of nourishing itself, and animals are no exception. The exact diet of different animal species is extremely dependant on the animal and the area in which it lives.

Animals must eat other living organisms in order to survive including both plants and other animals as well as having access to water. Animals have adapted to their surroundings and so will make the most of what is there. Camels for example, inhabit dry and baron deserts where there is little water, so they have evolved the ability to store large amounts of water in their bodies.

Although the exact diets of individual animal species are very varied, the diet of animals is usually split into three groups, which are herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores.

Herbivores
Herbivorous animals are vegetarians meaning that they only eat plants. Many animals are unable to eat large amounts of vegetation as their digestive systems are unable to break it down. Herbivorous animals have evolved to be able to consume and digest large quantities of plants, many of which have more than one stomach. Elephants, rabbits, manatees and deer are all herbivorous animals.
Omnivores
Animals that are said to be omnivorous, are animals that eat pretty much anything. An omnivorous diet is made up from both plant matter and other animals, as lots of animals need to eat a high amount of protein which other animals contain. Humans, bears, lemurs, raccoons and numerous birds are all omnivorous animals.
Carnivores
Carnivorous animals are meat-eaters, meaning that they only eat other animals in order to get their nutrition. Carnivores usually have sharp teeth and strong jaws, which they need to successfully catch and eat their prey. Lions, crocodiles, otters, and weasels are all carnivorous animals.

Food Chains

Regardless of their lifestyle, all animals, ultimately provide food for other animals. Animals are connected to one another by food chains, which involves the passing of food from one animal species to another.

Typically
food chains start with a plant which is known as the producer. The producer in a food chain gains the energy it needs from the sun and is the only link in the food chain which does not consume organic matter. This going to be highly problematic on the Noah's ark. The producer is consumed by a herbivore known as a primary consumer, which is then consumed by the secondary consumer, generally a small, omnivorous animal. The tertiary consumer, usually a smaller carnivore, then eats the small omnivorous mammal. The tertiary consumer is also sometimes eaten by a larger carnivore which would be the quaternary consumer.

Food chains differ from one another all over the world, and are largely dependent on the
habitat and the species which live there. Of course practically all reputable scientist will recognise these have evolved over millions of years. One of the reasons so many species are dying off is because of disruption to natural habitats. Food chains for marine species work in the same way, although the producers in marine food chains are usually small aquatic plants and phytoplankton. These would be destroyed by the flood described in Genesis.

Animals have adapted in order to more easily obtain food and animals from all around the world are known to use tools both to eat their food and to obtain it. All animals have developed strong jaws, teeth and tongues in order to make the most of their meals and some animals such as apes, use tools such as rocks and sticks in order to get their food.

What makes you think all of the animals we not in the vicinity and the distribution w made after the flood?

Once again this is understanding basic biology and ecology. Living beings have adapted to diverse habitats around the world and most could not have survived living in the habitat of Mesopotamia. You have not answered most of my questions in previous posts because you are unable to. For example, how did all the animals redistribute around the world after the flood?

All don' agree with that, Some estimae ther is only 1 million land animals and birds.

It still wouldn't work and I suspect you are just not going to get it.

I believe in an All-Powerful, Omnipotent God. My God is also All-loving and Just. I simply don't believe in a God that exterminates most of His creation as a punishment. That is beyond genocidal. I simply don't have a word to describe it. I can see why many who advocate for this type of God, have no awareness or understanding of the diverse reality of peoples of different faiths and cultures let alone the needs and habitats of many of our animals and plants we share the planet with. It contradicts science and I'm proud to stand with the scientific community who rejects creationism. I'm delighted to part of a faith community that believes in unity in diversity and promoting conservation and peace.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Talk is cheap, where's your evidence?

Both of these give plenty of references to the literature:

The Age of the Earth: G. Brent Dalrymple: 9780804723312: Amazon.com: Books

Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution (Cambridge Paleobiology Series): Robert Lynn Carroll: 9780521478090: Amazon.com: Books

Not necessary. His punctated equilibra theory basiclly says there are not intermediate fossils. You need to believed your best expert.
I have read Gould extensively. Punc Eq *does* produce intermediates. They will be more rare than in standard, gradual change, but they still exist. In fact, Gould presented several.

Again, go read his books before misrepresenting him.

That's the point, you don't know and you don't need DNA. The laws of genetics prevent evolution from happening.
On the contrary, given how DNA works, mutation *will* happen. Then, given the fact of differential survival, natural selection *will* happen. Both are unavoidable. Finally, the two together will produce large scale changes over time.

There is absolutely no question of this on the mathematical level. In fact, this process is used to create new computer programs to do things we didn't know how to do previously. It produces new characteristics.

You can't show that without intermediate fossils.
Which we have. Eohippus is ancestral. Orohippus was next, then Epihippus, then Mesohipus. Etc. The Wikipedia article has extensive references if you want to look at them. Don't take Wiki's word for it. Look at the source material.

I did paraphrase it, but it is basically what he said and it was not taken out of context. Not only that, Ernst Mayr, said basically the same thing. In fact I think what I quoted was actually hiss comment. Mayr also said the fossil record remains woefully inadquate.
Yes, fossilization is rare. We would dearly *love* to see a more extensive record. In many lines, the preservation is poor and we don't know what happened. We don't have many fossil bats, for example. And it would be *wonderful* to find more.

But that doesn't negate the evidence we *do* have. And more evidence is being pulled out of the ground every day..

Not true. A distinct species by definition is not an intermediate.
OK, I had a feeling this was your basic misunderstanding. OF COURSE intermediate species are full species. They had to survive in their environments. They had to be fully functional organisms.

WHY WOULD YOU THINK OTHERWISE?

But the intermediate species were also transitional between the older and the newer species.

Think of it like this (an analogy). Two thousand years ago, the English language did not exist. During Chaucer's time, Middle English existed. It was a full language in and of itself. But it was also transitional between Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.

The same thing happens with species. At each and every stage of the transition, they are full species, adapted to their environment. But as the environment changes over many generations (yes, even in pUnc Eq), the species change. And *that* is evolution.

I know what he said.
Have you ever read any of his work? Or do you rely on the quote mines of others?

That is pure bolony. Stasis IS NOT a mechanism for a change of species. If you still say it is, tell me HOW IT WORKS.
Mutation and natural selection.

What was a horse before it was a horse? What did the horse evolve into? How many steps did it take for non-horse to become a horse and how many steps did it take for the horse to evolve into something other than a horse?
See the link above.

How many stages did it take for French to evolve from something that was not French? The very question shows you miss the point.

Actually Darwin and all of his evangelist have deluded you into thinking opinions are scientific evidence.
Have you actually looked at any of the research journals? Have you ever read any of the research-level books? Have you ever been at a dig?

If not, then *you* are the one being deluded by evangelicals.

A PhD in math is a great thing, congratulations, but a degree in math doe snot mean you understand genetics. So tell me what determines the traits the offspring will have when it is born?

It is a combination of the genetics and the specifics of development. The main lines are, of course, genetic. But if the mother is under a great deal of stress, or has certain diseases, it can affect development.

Wonderful. Please start with the assumptions they have to make to get their results and do these assumptions give a shorter time for a longer time.

Well, overall the radioactive methods assume a constant decay rate. This is justified by the fact that it takes extreme conditions to change such decay rates (temperatures of millions of degrees, for example).

After that, the assumptions depend on the specific method. For example, using Rb/Sr can detect contamination of the original sample. K/Ar requires that the mineral used be non-porous or else the Argon will leak out giving a falsely small age. Uranium tracking assumes that the original sample was heated enough to melt the tracks that existed at that time and that no further heating affected the mineral (and we know how to check when this happens).

Some methods work better on living things (Carbon dating) and others on igneous rock (K/Ar and Uranium based dating). Some have long half-lives (K/Ar, U, Rb/Sr) and others have very short half-lives (Carbon).

None assume ahead of time what the resulting age will be, but some will give garbage answers if the basic assumptions are not met (and there are ways to check these).

So, for example, Carbon dating will give false answers if the carbon source for the organism isn't one that mixes with the atmosphere but is instead from carbonaceous rock. This explains why some shell fish give false dates.

Also, you don't use Carbon dating for samples that are older than about 50-60,000 years old. The half-live of C14 is short enough that older samples will only give background readings.

Very little but I do understand the difference between an opinion and evidence, and that is the only understanding one needs.
Since you are so well educated, and i gladly accept that you are, explain how the nose of land animal can evolve into the blowhole of a sea creature.

Nostrils at end of nose, directed forward. This is standard for land animals. The next species becomes semi-aquatic. The nostrils have moved to pointing up, out of the water. Look at Hippos today to see an example. In the next species, more time is spent in the water. The nostrils have move up and back to allow better breathing while in the water. Finally, a fully aquatic species with the nostril placed at the top of the head.

Furthermore, we can actually see these changes in the fossil skulls.

The evolution of whales
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
About languages. Don't tell me what I could have said, explain how different language developed. Please include the supporting evidence.

Pick a language. I can't go over each and every one.

So, for example, English didn't exist 2000 years ago. Nobody at that time spoke English, or French, or Spanish. Instead, there was Latin (very common because of the Roman empire), some Celtic languages, and some early Germanic languages (none would be recognizable as modern German). The good thing about these languages is that we have written records showing how tey changed over time. We know how French evolved from Latin. We know how Spanish evolved from Latin and a mix of Arabic. We know how English evolved from Anglo-Saxon, with some other Germanic languages and an infusion of French.

About corn and teosinte. Get an ear of each and plant some of the seeds and tell me what the corn seed produced and what the teosinte seed produced.
And yet, teosinte and modern corn can interbreed. Also, look at the ears of corn grown by people 1000 years ago. Compare them to modern corn. Then compare to corn grown 1500 years ago.

There is a very clear progression.

Then grind some of the seeds into powder and get them tested for DNA. Now see if there is a difference .

And you will find differences, but not nearly as many as you might expect. Teosinte and corn can interbreed.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The Dead Sea scrolls are simply the oldest known texts of the OT. That is the evidence!
Not true. Archeologist date tghe Dead Sea Scrolls between 250 BC and 68 AD. Every book in the OT is dated later than than that.
By "oldest known texts" @shunyadragon almost certainly meant "oldest known biblical manuscripts." That is clearly true.
What extra Biblical archeological evidence can you cite and provide that any text of the Hebrew Bible existed prior to ~600 BCE? There is no evidence of Hebrew writing in the form used in the Dead Sea scrolls except for the silver scrolls and a few Stella in primitive Hebrew found in the Hills of Judah.
I could if it was necessary but all we need is a little common sense. Who wrote most of the Psalms? When did he live? Who wrote Ecclesiastes ? When did he live.
You have zero evidence concerning the author of the Psalms or Ecclesiastes So, for example:

The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Kohelet, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly".[9] According to rabbinic tradition, Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon in his old age.[10] (An alternative tradition that "Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes" probably means simply that the book was edited under Hezekiah.)[11] Nevertheless, critical scholars have long rejected the idea of a pre-exilic origin.[12][13] The presence of Persian loan-words and Aramaisms points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE,[1] while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.[14] The dispute as to whether Ecclesiastes belongs to the Persian or the Hellenistic periods (i.e., the earlier or later part of this period) revolves around the degree of Hellenization (influence of Greek culture and thought) present in the book. Scholars arguing for a Persian date (c. 450–330 BCE) hold that there is a complete lack of Greek influence;[1] those who argue for a Hellenistic date (c. 330–180 BCE) argue that it shows internal evidence of Greek thought and social setting.[15] [ emphasis added (JS); source ]​
 
Top