• In total there are 2 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Noah's Ark: Fact or Fantasy?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: The Truth about Noah

Unread post

I do believe there was a flood myth (Gilgamesh?) from Babylonian times as well. As Mad says, the fertile cresent was/is prone to flooding, and even if it did NOT cause widespread destruction and death, the fact that such fertile land would flood would cause much havoc with growing crops that it may have caused a flood myth of massive scope due to the impact on daily life even a small flooding could cause.I am not sure who is credited with the FIRST flood myth, but it may just be from the 'Cradle' civilizations.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 4/24/06 9:36 am
Vasilius Konstantinos

Re: Noah's Ark: Fact or Fantasy?

Unread post

I tend to give the Flood of Noah credibility. One thing which really gives credence to it- the Ancient Chinese Petroglyphic writing, still used and translated into the mid 1800's. The word for Flood in the language was the combination of the words for "eight people" and "boat". This was used long before Judaism reared its head that far East. Also many ancient accounts among the native people of China also relate stories to a Great Flood. Of course, The Epic of Gilgamesh with the tale of Uta-Napishtum telling Gilgamesh the tale. The Hindustani folktale of the Creation Waters and the forming of the Indus river from the Great Flood waters. The Native Petroglyphs of New Mexico among the Anasazi ruins showing the waters encompassing a large field of mountains and engulfing the highest peak (The boat on top should be ignored.) On another note, it is interesting to see how many floods there were when almost every fossil record is found in a ditch from a flood(local, of course). I once saw a map of the fossils uncovered worldwide at UCLA's Archaeology department one year and I was laughing. Every one of the records for that year alone were considered in a flood ditch. Tens of thousands of fossils from prehistoric to early homosapien was found in a flood ditch. A bit of more research since then tells us also that close to 100% of the fossil record is discovered in some sort of disarray due to water levels or floods. So what does this tell me? No one has to agree with me, LOLVK
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Noah's Ark: Fact or Fantasy?

Unread post

It's late and I am not going to spend the time to post links that refute your idea about where and when fossils are found. But your information is just plain wrong.Think about this for a moment. After the waters subsided and the ark landed on Mt. Ararat in Turkey where did all the animals go? How did the marsupials get back to their continent? How did penguins get to theirs?
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Noah, Revisited

Unread post

Just my two cents on this small semantic matter:Quote:The term "primitive" is derogatory. No, it is not necessarily derogatory. It CAN be used that way...but it is not a derogatory word. It just means that something is less developed than it is today.When I use it...I know I simply mean it as Chris described...it can sound derogatory when juxtaposed with my rants against religion, but I do not mean to belittle people who lived many hundreds or thousands of years ago...just to say, agains as Chris said, that they were not as capable in certain areas of thought and practice as we are today. I do not hold any derogatory views on Homo Habilis, but I do think they are primitive forms of Homo Sapiens.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: Noah, Revisited

Unread post

misterpessimistic: No, it is not necessarily derogatory. It CAN be used that way...but it is not a derogatory word. It just means that something is less developed than it is today."Primitive" doesn't even necessarily have to mean that. The root of the word is the same as that of the word primary or prime -- it just means first. To understand the situation that DH and I are talking about, you have to know a little bit about the history of anthropology. The methodology of late 19th and early 20th century anthropologists was to examine currently existing cultures that were still hunter-gatherer or agrarian rather than industrial. The supposition was that these cultures had changed very little over a period of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years, and that they were therefore the most sure indicator of how pre-historic tribes lived. And the term applied to these tribes was "primitive", indicating that they somehow represented the unchanged initial state of humanity.So far, so good. But certain connotations began to arise around the use of a seemingly innocuous word, and those connotations were due in large part to the biases of early anthropologists. There were connotations of stagnation -- these were "unfit" tribes in some sense, unable to expand beyond their geographically limited home regions.Later anthropologists challenged the label of primitive, and it seems like the term has lost official sanction, despite the fact that it's anthropological use has continued among laymen. One objection is that there is no clear evidence that these contemporary tribes represent continuous traditions -- it's entirely likely that they've actually developed and changed a great deal since the tribes initial inception, and that the illusion of stagnation is due entirely to our own biases about how a culture should progress from hunter-gathering to agrarianism to industrialization.So, no, the word primitive in itself has not been, traditionally, derogatory, but it's specific application to describing cultures carries with it a number of connotations that are inapt and, in some cases, insulting.just to say, agains as Chris said, that they were not as capable in certain areas of thought and practice as we are today.They didn't have a systematic science, no. But on an individual level, I would say that there's little to no evidence in favor of the view that they were any less capable of rational thought than we are to do. Most of the intellectual leaps that we've made in the last several hundreds of years are do primarily to our forms of social organization, particularly to the ways in which that organization has allowed us to share and test information. There were specific instances in which societies fell into place in such a way that a certain degree of scientific endeavor was possible -- the Medians had astronomy, the Incas invented a form of freeze drying, the Assyrians apparantly created a form of dry-cell battery. So the ancient Greeks may not have had the sort of society necessary to shoot humans into space and confirm that God was not there (as the Russian cosmonauts apparantly did), but I doubt that's due to any particularly naive credulity on the part of individual Greeks.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Noah, Revisited

Unread post

Quote:"Primitive" doesn't even necessarily have to mean that. The root of the word is the same as that of the word primary or prime -- it just means first.Yes. And this was in my thoughts when I was posting but I failed to make it clear...I was focusing on development in my post, in the context of the original posts talking about early, unrefined as opposed to more advanced. Just because something comes first, does not mean it is inferior to something that comes later.Quote:So, no, the word primitive in itself has not been, traditionally, derogatory, but it's specific application to describing cultures carries with it a number of connotations that are inapt and, in some cases, insulting.I understand your explanation...and I can see how it can be used in a pejorative manner...just as social darwinists used evolutionary theory to justify predjudice.Quote:But on an individual level, I would say that there's little to no evidence in favor of the view that they were any less capable of rational thought than we are to doI see what you are saying and I agree. I have always appreciated the capacity of the individual for high intellectual functions...it is when group pressure is exerted that things tend to get diluted. To coin a phrase from a silly movie: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." Quote:Most of the intellectual leaps that we've made in the last several hundreds of years are do primarily to our forms of social organization, particularly to the ways in which that organization has allowed us to share and test information.But even still...I would tend to think that our capabilities have increased as well over early civilizations...I mean, the discovery of new ways of thinking has to have some sort of effect on WHAT we are capable of, no? Man...it is sad to think of so many brilliant minds from way back when not having a way to formulate and/or disseminate their ideas. Have we been deprived of great thinkers from the past due to our lack of efficiency in systematizing and sharing our knowledge?Quote:Assyrians apparantly created a form of dry-cell battery.And I believe the "Mythbusters" confirmed that this could work! I love that show. Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 4/25/06 2:35 pm
Vasilius Konstantinos

Re: Noah, Revisited

Unread post

Quote:It's late and I am not going to spend the time to post links that refute your idea about where and when fossils are found. But your information is just plain wrong.Even if I saw it with my own eyes and researched roughly twenty years of archaeological finds dealing with prehistory, I am wrong? Literally, almost 100% of the fossil records (of prehistoric date) are found in or near now defunct waterways, defunct creeks, defunct rivers or defunct washes. This was in 1990 when I saw the records and in 1991 where it was confirmed at the library at UCSB. Dr. DeFries I believe was the one who confirmed my research.Quote:Think about this for a moment. After the waters subsided and the ark landed on Mt. Ararat in Turkey where did all the animals go? How did the marsupials get back to their continent? How did penguins get to theirs?The Hebrew text regarding the landing on Mt. Ararat is not necessarily true, or proven. The Hebrew word was RRT, which could be translated as "Mt. Ararat" or the word "Urar'tu" which translates to "far, far away".I really do not know for sure, LOL, but there is something called continental drifting and microevolution which is caused by adaptation to the climates or survival. I doubt there would be Penguins on board the ark but if some birds migrated or were caught on some drift or adapted to an "Ice Age"(insert pun here) it could be plausible. So I guess what I am stating is the animals were general species and adapted to their enivronments afterward, thus creating the mass species we have today. I have no evidence, except for the records of quick adaptations we have witnessed these last two centuries. Your guess is as good as mine if any of it actually happened or not, but I still see a Noahidic Deluge as plausible.But I will state something here right now if I am going to post here, Chris. "...You are just plain wrong" and "...It's late and I am not going to spend the time to..." pisses the living fuck out of me. Don't bullshit and fly without giving any evidence except your quick wit. If you are going to post that I am wrong and try to fuck me over("you are wrong") without any lubricant("well, I really don't have the time to prove shit"), I am gone. I hate that shit and I don't do it to others; it bullshit and rude. Don't post anything until you have your evidence and I shall do the same. Agreed? And if you must post, as some people must do regardless of their OCD, post something with at least some flowers in it before I get kissed, or screwed...LOL VK
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Noah, Revisited

Unread post

I composed a lengthy reply, but then deleted it thinking I hadn't put enough time and effort into the wording. Sorry for the "you're wrong" post, without explaining how I felt you were wrong. While it is true that fossils are typically found in depressions such as lake bottoms, river beds and such, there is a good explanation for this. The fossilization process is very rare, but even rarer for land-dwelling animals. Marine life fossilizes more readily for a variety of reasons. To be honest I was annoyed with your use of "LOL" repeatedly, and how you said you laughed when you saw the distribution pattern of discovered fossils. I don't think the distribution pattern supports Noah's Ark even a little bit. There is no evidence for a global flood, but tons of evidence for local floods all over the planet. A local flood might appear to be a global flood to early people who lived in extremely close proximity to bodies of water. Even today most of human civilization lies within a few miles of major bodies of water, but thousands of years ago this phenomenon was even more pronounced, as we had yet to develop the technology for moving water rapidly and efficiently from the bodies of water to remote settlements. Yes, the Greeks and Romans had aqueducts, but they were only good for relatively short distances. And it doesn't matter where the ark landed. No matter what it landed on one continent and one continent only. We have creatures on every continent on Earth, so for Noah's Ark to hold water, so to speak, these animals would have to have traveled somehow back to their original continents.By arguing for continental drift you are showing your EXTREME bias and resistance to science that conflicts with your beliefs. The supercontinent of Pangea broke up during the Jurassic period, which is a period that most young Earth creationists don't even believe existed. I gotta go. I hope I'm not penalized for having to go so quickly.
the hive queen

Re: Noah, Revisited

Unread post

I agree. I see nothing in the fossil record to support that Noah's flood ever occurred. Of course there are tons of fossils in areas that have flooded -- these areas are perfect for the process of fossilization. And the geologic time that passed between the separation of the continents and the possible existence of Noah is so vast, there is no way they have any relation. Here's my big question, though: How could the supposed "two of each animal" ever successfully reproduce enough to ever get dispersed? With what we know about gene pools, this is just not possible. When you look at religions as a world-wide phenomenon, you have to note that every society/culture/tribe/whatever has a "creation myth" (the anthropological term does not imply they are false; rather, they are stories that are present). Most of these societies have a deconstruction story, as well. Many are floods, but some are fires or some other catastrophy. The details differ, of course, but the main point is often very similar: "we" were created for a reason and "we" should behave in an appropriate manner or our creator may take measures to cleanse our population. I have a hard time delineating the stories from the bible from any other religious views found througout the world, throughout history. How does one believe in one story and discount another? Where do you find proof and draw a line? Just my thoughts... "Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody is watching." -- Keller Williams
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3503 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Noah, Revisited

Unread post

They may be just your thoughts, but they are all valid points that show the myth of Noah's Ark is complete bunk. There are several web sites that bullet-point dozens of reasons why Noah's ark simply cannot and is not true. The scary thing is that no matter what is said people of faith will cling to their belief in the myths of the Bible.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”