Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?So these hundreds of thousands of animals all turned up on the day because god commanded them? Now I know where they got that idea for the Jim Carey movie Bruce almighty
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
- a 500 year old ship builder that spent 100 years building the ark, and subsequently lived to over 900
- animals 'just appeared' at the ark
- freshwater pools existing in a global ocean
- perishable foodstuff didn't rot prior to be stored on the ark.
- no other ship survived the flood in spite of the builders being the most advanced shipbuilders in the history of mankind (one of them built the ark)
- who harvested seed of all plant life so they would have plants to reseed around the world.
- how did the newly planted seeds survive now heavily salted soils? Salt generally being toxic to plants found on land.
that's just a few off the top of my head.
And his answer will be *God did it* 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
short on evidence
Just like all your posts.It would only take 18 um or the diameter of the finest Human hair of erosion per year to completely wash Everest into the sea over 500 milllion years.
... and yet we see great chunks of the limestone that is on top of Mount Everest being eroded before our very eyes today ... the place is literally 'falling down about its ears'!!!
http://www.drrgateway.net/sites/default/files/raoi-attachments/Landslide%20Mapping%20of%20the%20Everest%20Region%20Using%20High%20Resolution%20Satellite%20Images%20and%203D%20Visuals.pdf
No, we see a small degree of glacial erosion at lower elevations but little or no evidence of any erosion at the crest of high elevations.
Erosion Rates at the crest of the Himalayas: Slow or Fast?
As I pointed out in my last post, your spurious claim about 18microns being enough to wear away the mountain doesn't account for confounding factors, most importantly uplift.Frost and ice are one of the greatest erosion accelerants.
No. In case nobody explained this to you before JC, physical erosion is actually composed of two processes, weathering and erosion. Weathering is the process by which wind and water (mostly in the form of rain) cause chunks of rock to be broken up and separated from the main body of the mountain. Erosion is the process by which these wear particles are washed away or removed from the vicinity of the mountain. While glaciation contributes to erosion at lower elevations, the layers of snow and ice at higher elevations essentially insulate the mountain from weathering processes such as wind and rain, meaning that there is little to no erosion at the peaks.
There is a problem with picking apart these minor features of JC's argument that gives it the veneer of a plausible concept. Instead I'm going to stick with the overall narrative to show why the literal interpretation proposed by JC is wrong.
The first point that JC seems to miss is the scientific method. A good scientific theory is one which explains the most observed facts with the least extraneous assumptions. To that end I am proposing that we analyse two competing hypotheses to consider how they best fit the available evidence. The first hypothesis is JC's literal flood as outlined in Genesis 6-8. We'll gloss over the massive contradictions between 6&7 for now. The competing hypothesis is that Genesis 6-8 are in fact syncretic borrowings of earlier flood myth, specifically the Epic of Ziusudra as documented in both The Epic of Ziusudra and The Epic of Gilgamesh. I intend to show that these Sumerian texts are the original basis for the Noah narrative and that the wild claims presented in Genesis originate in mistranslations of the original Sumerian text.
Hypothesis 1 - Genesis 6-8 (Literal Interpretation)
OK, so let's analyse JC's hypothesis first. For those interested, here are the original texts: Genesis 6, Genesis 7, Genesis 8. I am using the New American Standard Bible translation as it is the closest translation to the original Hebrew.
Problem 1 - Unfounded assumptions
The first problem with JC's hypothesis is that it requires assumptions not supported by either the source text or any physical evidence in order to make it align with reality.
"If the surface of the earth was perfectly smooth the entire surface would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep or 1.6 miles ... so there is more that enough water on the earth to flood it completely and comprehensively!!!" [Source]
This assumption is needed to explain the otherwise impossible volume of water which suddenly appeared during the flood and somehow mysteriously disappeared after the flood. There is no evidence either in the text, or in the geological record that the Earth was smoother 4000 years ago. Neither is there any physical process by which a smooth Earth could have developed its current topography within the last 4000 years.
"Marsupials aren't confined to Australia ... and the Australian ones would have migrated over period of hundreds of years to Australia, overland and over the land-bridges that were present following the Flood ... "
There were no land bridges between Australia and the Middle East 4000 years ago. There is no mention of marsupials in the orginal text because of course, the author wouldn't have even been aware of them.
"There were no 'polar' or 'tropical' animals at that time as the temperature variations were minimal over the Earth at the time before the Flood due to atmospheric 'greenhouse' conditions at the time that increased the temperature at the poles and reduced it at the equator."
Again, neither polar nor tropical animals were known in the Middle East at the time and hence they are not mentioned. More importantly though, there is no mention in either Genesis or any physical evidence to support the idea that the atmospheric conditions 4000 years ago were as JC describes them.
"'Dormancy' is a distinct possibility ... as this was a unique and very stressful time."
One of the problems with the Genesis account is that the number of animals loaded on the ark would have required food for the duration of the voyage (approx. six months). Given some of the animals restricted diets and/or large food intake this creates a problem given the limiting dimensions of the ark. JC's "solution" is to suggest that the animals hibernated. However, dormancy is neither indicated in Genesis nor is it supported by any general or specific biological evidence.
"The author was being conservative ... the Ark was actually 45 feet high and thus was about six stories high and would therefore have a total floor area of approximately 200,000 square feet ... and 50,000 animals is being exceedingly generous ... some estimates have concluded that 1,000 Kinds (approximately 2,000 animals) would hav been sufficient."
Now here's an interesting one. As iDave points out in his video, the sheer number of animals required creates a number of problems for the Genesis account. One of JC's solutions is to suggest that Noah took a pair from the crown species of each "created kind" on the ark instead. This would mean for example, that the mating pair from the Cat baramin diversified within 4000 years to create the following list of species:
Felidae (Cat) Baramin
Felis
Chinese Mountain Cat Felis bieti
Jungle Cat Felis chaus
Sand Cat Felis margarita
Black-footed Cat Felis nigripes
Wild Cat Felis silvestris
African Wild Cat Felis s. silvestris
Domestic Cat Felis s. catus
Otocolobus
Pallas's Cat Otocolobus manul
Prionailurus
Leopard Cat Prionailurus bengalensis
Iriomote Cat Prionailurus iriomotensis
Flat-headed Cat Prionailurus planiceps
Rusty-spotted Cat Prionailurus rubiginosus
Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus
Acinonyx
Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus
Puma
Cougar Puma concolor
Jaguarundi Puma yagouaroundi
Lynx
Canadian Lynx Lynx canadensis
Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx
Iberian Lynx Lynx pardinus
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Leopardus
Pantanal Cat Leopardus braccatus
Colocolo Leopardus colocolo
Geoffroy's Cat Leopardus geoffroyi
Kodkod Leopardus guigna
Andean Mountain Cat Leopardus jacobitus
Pampas Cat Leopardus pajeros
Ocelot Leopardus pardalis
Oncilla Leopardus tigrinus
Margay Leopardus wiedii
Leptailurus
Serval Leptailurus serval
Caracal
Caracal Caracal caracal
Profelis
African Golden Cat Profelis aurata
Catopuma
Bay Cat Catopuma badia
Asian Golden Cat Catopuma temminckii
Pardofelis
Marbled Cat Pardofelis marmorata
Neofelis
Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa
Bornean Clouded Leopard Neofelis diardi
Panthera
Lion Panthera leo
Jaguar Panthera onca
Leopard Panthera pardus
Tiger Panthera tigris
Uncia
Snow Leopard Uncia uncia
This would require some kind of hyper-caffeinated mega evolution that is simply beyond the bounds of possiblity.
Problem 2 - Unanswered questions
Arguably, the bigger problem with a literal reading of the Genesis account is the amount of unanswered questions it leaves behind. There is just so much that the narrative doesn't address that this alone makes it a bad explanation.
Where did all the water go?
Even if we are to believe the subterranean water theory (fountains of the deep) then it still leaves the question of how the increased volume of water returned to the level we have now. It should also be noted at this point that the only source for the increased water is the fountains of the deep. Rainfall cannot increase the global water level. Local yes, global no.
How did the plants survive?
One of the conspicuous absences from the narratives in Genesis 6&7 is the failure of God to direct Noah to save any plant species. The only references to any plants are the food which Noah brings on the ark and the olive leaf brought back by the dove after the flood. However, the problem here is that the flood rose to cover even the tops of the mountains and remained this way for a number of months. Sunlight as we know is necessary for plant growth, but sunlight doesn't penetrate water that well. In the ocean, the sunlight or euphotic zone extends from the surface to a depth of about 200m. From there to about 1000m is the dysphotic or twilight zone. Below 1000m is the aphotic or midnight zone where no light penetrates. Given JC's supposition of 2686m as the flood level, every plant on the land would have been dead in a very short space of time.
How did second and lower tier species survive post flood?
Apart from top predators, there are a lot of species which usually end up in the jaws of a predator at some point. In most cases, these predators will not eat carrion if they have live prey to feed on. So how did Noah prevent, for example, the two lions eating the two zebras.
Finally, there are a couple more technically-oriented questions which you didn't bother to answer the last time we had this conversation JC. Perhaps you might like to do it now.- Where did all the organic material (e.g. chalk, coal) in the fossil record come from?
- How was the heat from metamorphic events like limestone formation dissipated?
- Why are there no modern plants, or, for that matter, human artifacts or other fossils found deep in the geologic column?
- Why do smaller organisms dominate the lower strata instead of having floated to the upper strata if the flood were true?
- Why is the ecological information consistent within but not between layers in the fossil record?
- How could varves have been formed so quickly?
- Why do marine fossils vastly outnumber land animals in the fossil record?
Hypothesis 2 - Syncretic borrowing of Sumerian flood myth
Now we shall analyse the Genesis narratives to see if a borrowing of Sumerian myth can better explain the issues with the Genesis account.
Issue 1 - Noah's age
The first thing that stands out in the Genesis account is Noah's advanced age outlined in Genesis 5. He has children when he is 500 years old, takes 100 years or so to build the ark and get ready, and finally dies at 950. However, long ages don't seem to be a problem in this era. Methuselah, after all lives to be 969. However, it is completely incongruent with our current understanding of biology. So how do we resolve it?
Firstly, when we look at the Genesis 5 account, we see that it is laid out in an odd pattern. For each character mentioned, their life is marked by two events, when their son is born and how long they lived after that. So for example:
Adam - Son at 230, lives another 800 years
Methuselah - Son at 167, lives another 782 years
Noah - Son at 500, lives another 450 years
This seems like a long time to leave it before having children. However, when we look at their ages at the time of first child and compare it to their lifespan we start to see a pattern. Before I get to that I should point out that there is a discrepancy between the ages in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint as outlined here.
Genealogies of Genesis
Anyway, when we look at the age ranges using the Septuagint numbers we see that predominantly they turn out to be between 4 and 6 (calculated as age at death divided by age at first birth). This isn't hugely surprising given either the culture of the time or even today. This would mean a person aged 18 at first sins birth dying at 72. Given that these men were having children roughly in the same portion of their lives as men do today, the long ages might suggest a translation error. It should also be pointed out that the men in the Genesis list were even correcting for the translation error, long lived but this too is easily explained.
Of course, this is in fact what we find. We need to consider that the language of the time and region was a mix of semi-modern alphabets and ideographic alphabets. Therefore translation errors were common. In Noah's case, the origin of the genealogy in Genesis 5 is the list of Kings in Sumerian myth. The only problem is that the copyist who authored Genesis got the Sumerian number system wrong.
There were a number of number systems in use in Sumer at the peak of its society. However, the one we are interested in is the SHE-GUR-MAH number system used in Shurappak where Ziusudra ruled. As this number system was translated into sexegesimal and cuneiform and finally decimals, the numbers became mistranslated such that 48 in the original system became 600 in the decimal system.
Ancient Mespotamian units of meaurement
Analysis of the numbers in Genesis 5
Issue 2 - Translation issues
In this section I hope to show that a) the Noah story is borrowed from the story of Ziusudra by demonstrating parallels in the texts and that b) the extraordinary features of the Noah story are caused by deliberately or accidently altering the source text.
Parallels
"Like the apsu you shall roof it" Gilgamesh XI,31
"Make a roof for the ark" Genesis 6:16
"pitch I poured into the inside" Gilgamesh XI,66
"cover it inside and out with pitch" Genesis 6:14
"into the ship all my family and relatives" Gilgamesh XI,84
"Go into the ark, you and all your household" Genesis 7:1
"I entered the ship and closed the door" Gilgamesh XI,93
"And they that entered...and the Lord shut him in" Genesis 7:16
"All mankind was turned to clay" Gilgamesh XI,133
"And all flesh died...and every man" Genesis 7:21
"I opened the window" Gilgamesh XI,135
"Noah opened the window of the ark" Genesis 8:6
"On Mount Nisir the boat grounded" Gilgamesh XI,140
"the ark came to rest upon the mountains" Genesis 8:4
"The dove went out and returned" Gilgamesh XI,147
"sent forth the dove and the dove came back to him" Genesis 8:10-11
"When a seventh day arrived" Gilgamesh XI,145
"He waited another seven days" Genesis 8:10
"I sent forth a raven" Gilgamesh XI,152
"Noah... sent forth a raven" Genesis 8:7
Resolved questions
Did Noah really bring two of every animal on the Ark?
No, of course not. The epic of Gilgamesh makes no such claim. Instead the rather mundane line is:
"All the living beings that I had I loaded on it,"
Ziusudra didn't take every animal, just those he owned.
Did the water really rise over the mountains?
Again, no. The area which was once Sumer, particularly around Ziusudra's kingdom of Shurappak:
is an area which is quite flat. The closest there would have been to a mountain would have been over 100 miles away. So from Ziusudra's point of view a flood that rose up 15 cubits would have easily covered everything in sight.
Epic of Gilgamesh
Epic of Ziusudra
In conclusion, there is no basis for a literal reading of Genesis and every reason to suspect that the tale is borrowed from earlier myths with the seemingly extraordinary details being the result of translation mistakes. There's no miracle here.0
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
Advertisement