Noah's Flood...

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:23 pm

Religion has produced so many con men throughout history that cataloging them would take ages. And the sheep are always there to be fleeced!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:33 pm

here is one argument concerning the ark:

THE SIZE OF NOAH’S ARK—Based on the Hebrew
cubit of 18.5 inches [563.88 cm], it has been estimated
that if that great boat—the Ark—was only one-half the
size stated in Genesis 6:14-16—and omitting water creatures—
it could still have held two or seven of each basic
kind of animal and bird. The remainder of the boat
was probably used for food storage. But that estimate is
based on the smaller Hebrew cubit in the dimensions of
the Ark. However, it is very likely that Moses used the
cubit of his time—the Egyptian cubit—when giving the
dimensions of the Ark. This would make that giant boat
even larger. Here is the data:
According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark was 300 cubits
long, 59 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The Babylonian
cubit was 19.8 inches [603.504 cm], the later Hebrew regular
cubit was 17.5 inches [533.4 cm], and the Egyptian
cubit was 20.65 inches [629.12 cm].

Based on the Hebrew cubit, the dimensions of the
Ark would have been 437.5 feet [1,333 dm] long, 72.92
feet [222 dm] wide, and 43.75 feet [133 dm] high. With
three decks in the Ark, it had 95,747 square feet [29.18
dkm2], and a total volume of 1,395,734 cubic feet [39,499
mt3]. Its cubic tonnage would be 13,960 [1042 mt3].
Based on the Egyptian cubit used in the time of
Moses, the measurements of the Ark would be 516.25 feet
[1,573 dm] long, its width would be 86.04 feet [262 dm]
wide, and its height would be 51.625 feet [157 dm]. On
this basis—with three stories—its square footage would
be 1,332,545 square feet [123,793 m2] , and its volume
would be 2,293,087 cubic feet [64,894 m3]. Its cubic tonnage
would be 22,930 [17110 mt].
The Ark was a barge, not a ship with sloping sides,
so it had a much larger carrying capacity. It has been
reckoned that, even if measured by the smaller 18.5-inch
[563.88 cm] cubit of later times, the Ark would have been
so huge that 522 modern railroad box cars could have fitted
inside it! One each of every species of air-breathing
creatures in the world today could be comfortably carried
in only 150 box cars.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:40 pm

and here is a version from 2000 years earlier

On the fifth day I laid out her exterior.
It was a field in area,
its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height,
the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times 12 cubits each.
I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
I provided it with six decks,
thus dividing it into seven (levels).
The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).
I drove plugs (to keep out) water in its middle part.
I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary.
Three times 3,600 (units) of raw bitumen I poured into the
bitumen kiln,
three times 3,600 (units of) pitch ...into it,

the Sumerian cubit as about 518.5 mm or 20.4 inches.
oh look
the original boat is far far smaller
what surprise that is

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:54 pm

the Sumerian cubit as about 518.5 mm or 20.4 inches.
oh look
the original boat is far far smaller
what surprise that is

provide proof please. mine came from the book 'Evolution Cruncher' ch. 14.

where did you information come from? if you can't provide real and credible source material to back up your outlandish statements, expect to be ignored again.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:14 pm

Arch
Were the termites included in the headcount or were they stowaways ?
Just a matter of principles .

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:19 pm

where did you information come from? if you can't provide real and credible source material to back up your outlandish statements, expect to be ignored again.

ooh i dont't happen to have 'Evolution Cruncher' here besides me.
so your proof is as good as your word
would you like a rating between 1 and 0 on that ?

heres my source

The copper bar cubit of Nippur from c. 2650 BC is possibly a 'graduated rule' found by archaeologist and defines the Sumerian cubit as about 518.5 mm or 20.4 inches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit

you'll find that reference under the picture on the right hand side of the triangle

so once again Arch
you're wrong
I am right
the hebrews made it up
the sumerians originated the story
hows that feel for you
burns doesnt it
muhahahaha

ed · Post by ed » Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:38 pm

Minimalist wrote:
Do you know what that constitutes? The idea that our children shuld be subjected to such drivel? Treason, pure and simple. We revert to a medieval mindset while our competitors advance.

Amazing in the year 2006.

That's an extraordinarily valid point, Ed. After breakfast I have to do some research.

Later, boys.

just flashed on Chief Wiggam

ed · Post by ed » Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:52 pm

archaeologist wrote:
Flood" rainfall=10^9*0.00081495 = 814,950ml/m2/hour.

since i am not a hydrologist, i would need to send these figures to someone i trust but again, you are assuming an altitude and volume we cannot in any certainty do.
It covered the earth or not. You need a HS education to figure this out, it is one of those "volume" question.

you can present all the calculations you want but since you weren't there you are only assuming the possibility and not presenting a fact.

Ahhhhh.... as with ecerything in the bible including Jesus? Excellent.

BTW, do you deny that WWI happened? Were you there?
plus, that kind of pressure would inevitably alter the geography, the size and forms of hills, valleys etc. so you are in fact helping to prove the Flood not disprove it.

along with the fact that dead bodies float, among other things it is easy to understand that we would find the masses of bones depicted by Hapgood and place them in fissures as described by Rehwinkel.
Geologic columns anyone?

Which animal carried the Ebola?
not even pertinent to the issue

Very pertinent. Is it life or not?

Do you know what that constitutes? The idea that our children shuld be subjected to such drivel? Treason, pure and simple. We revert to a medieval mindset while our competitors advance.

and you want to give them evolution instead? ha ha ha evolution basically allows for behavior to go unpunished. it teaches no punishment for wrong doing, no judgment no discipline and so on. the Bible gets to you because God shows that there is judgment and punishment waiting for those who do wrong and continue to live in sin.
Evidence that evolution addresses any of these points. Please point to a specific peer reviewed paper.

[
b]the Bible doesn't stop people from being scientists nor using science[/b]. that is a personal choice made by individuals who pursue what they desire. don't place the blame on religion as all those countries have christians as well.
i have never stated an oposition to science, just the process and conclusions of those who misapplythe evidence.

You give up reason if you are a believer in a fundimentalist interpretation of the bible. That is incompatable with science.

ed · Post by ed » Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:55 pm

archaeologist wrote:
You start with a fable and reject anything that calls your god tales into question
nothing wrong with that approach. i prefer following someone with their eyes open not with 'eyes wide shut'.

Everything is wrong with it. It betrays the most precious gift: reason.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:05 pm

It covered the earth or not. You need a HS education to figure this out, it is one of those "volume" question.

not really, this quote

“For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.”

has no comparable line from any earlier flood story
the sumerians didn't say "the earth" at any time
they said

"the flood was upon the land"

the word they used for "land" was Ki
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e2898.html
in the tense that they use it in the original story it merely means that the flood covered the land around them
it can be used to translate to "earth" but only the type of "earth" that could otherwsie be called mud
so Hebrews translating "the flood was upon the land" decided completely on their own to translate it as "the flood was upon the planet" when in fact it would be closer to say "the flood was upon the mud"

Ki has been used 20,338 times in known sumerian texts
in every case it refers to a known location in mesopotamia
which funnily enough is a land probe to seasonal floods

so its not a volume problem
its a linguistical one

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:33 pm

Everything is wrong with it. It betrays the most precious gift: reason.

You need a HS education to figure this out, it is one of those "volume" question

when you stop insulting , maybe you will getsome credibility.

That is incompatable with science.

you have it backwards, i don't have to answer to science, it is not God but you have to answer to God; He will ask for an account.

Were the termites included in the headcount or were they stowaways ?

since we do not know all the species that were in existence at the time of the flood (ebola included) one cannot be totally specific as to where noah bedded them down.

so once again Arch
you're wrong

how am i wrong? i just asked for a source to back up your statements. i didn't say you were wrong, i wanted to know where you got your figures.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:47 pm

it is not God but you have to answer to God; He will ask for an account

Fuck him. The IRS asks for an account and they get it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:51 pm

archaeologist wrote:tHere is a question for you to ponder:

with the ability to choose given also to secular researchers, who have rejected God's morality, . . .

They have rejected a deity that admits to doing evil and demanding child sacrifice, yes.

Your point?

--J.D.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:57 pm

how am i wrong? i just asked for a source to back up your statements. i didn't say you were wrong, i wanted to know where you got your figures.

you questioned the information on sumerian measurements i gave you because it proved that the original Ark was much smaller
that doesn't fit in with your belief
so your original belief system is wrong
i thought that was quite simple Arch

God forbid that you ignore me again
ooh the horror

you might be interested to know that the original story says nothing about loading up two of every species either, just enough to eat for a week basically
but then it wouldn't need to would it
because it doesnt say it was a global flood either

lets see now
an ark gets bigger in the retelling
the occupants get more numerous in the retelling
the flood gets bigger in the retelling
this links for you
http://www.answers.com/topic/exaggeration-3
so's this one
http://www.answers.com/fairy%20story
Min might also like it

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:37 pm

[quote="Doctor X"][quote="archaeologist"]tHere is a question for you to ponder:

with the ability to choose given also to secular researchers, who have rejected God's morality, . . .[/quote]

They have rejected a deity that admits to doing evil and demanding child sacrifice, yes.

Your point?

--J.D.[/quote]

Thanks for bringing that up Doctor X. Arch are you saying that scientists are "immoral?" You really need to get out of your biblical world and met some real people, mainly some real scientists. All the ones I've known have had very high morals. Just because one does not accept the Bible as absolute, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY HAVE NO MORALS. Just like you saying that Catholics aren't Christian. Pure ignorance.

Arch has a hard time keeping apples and oranges separate.