FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Where did Cain's wife come from?





squirrelmaster
Okay, since adam and eve were the first generation, how could Cain have a wife? did he marry his mother, or did eve have a daughter?
Or did God simply create him a wife??

This question was brought up at school, and i couldn't answer it making me look incredibly stupid, not knowing mine own religion.
i am thinking that eve had a daughter or two, but don't really know. any help would be appreciated!! Very Happy
Tex_Arcana
It's been a while since I cracked a Bible but if I remember correctly Cain got married after he killed Abel and went to the land of Nod. Here is the odd part of the story that points to an inconsistancy. The impression is that the land of Nod was populated by people that were unrelated to Adam and Eve in any way. This isn't explained, or expounded on.

There was an article once written by a Pagan who explained his way of dealing with Jehovah Witnesses was by calmly explaining to them that their religion did not apply to him due to the fact that he was decinded from the "other" people mentioned in Genesis that Cain went to live with after killing Abel. Then he would bring out his Bible and show them the chapter and verse, and further explain that since he was not decinded from Adam and Eve but from these "other" people he was exempt so thanks but no thanks, have a nice day.

That is of course only one interpretation, and I'm sure that others will disagree. With that I'll leave with a joke since I've invoked the name Jehova Witnesses already.

What do you get when you cross a Jehova Witness with a Unitarian Universalist?

Someone that knocks on your door for no apparent reason.
death_dealer
well iv herd that kain had a twin girl and adel had a twin girl so thay married each other's twins so....................... yeh
a_dubDesign
Theres a couple of ways that I've seen people deal with this.

1.) The creation story and the story of cain and abel weren't meant to be taken literally.

2.) Adam and Eve and the creation story and what not is more how God created the Jewish choosen people. I've not heard this one that often though.

3.) Adam and Eve did indeed have daughters. They weren't written about because the culture was male dominated, and the women weren't usually included in the genelogies or written about period. If I recall correctly, and I definetly could be wrong, but the first time we see a woman included in a geneology in the bible is the very begining of Matthew when we get the geneology of Jesus.

4.) God doesn't really exist and the bible is a lie to keep people in line.

All four have thier own issues associated with them.

Tex, thanks for the good idea next time the JWs come around, which is usally once a month. And the awesome joke.
xeroed
there is a daughter mentioned, if I remember correctly, in the bible, if not there, then its a "commonly held" belief. Her name was Seth, and she became Cain's wife
livilou
I just commented on this in the thread about Lilith, but I'll do it again.

I feel that in Ge 1:27 is where the people from the land of Nod came from. I don't think Adam was created until the 8th day (Ge 2:7). But this is only my opinion.
sistahgeek
@ Xeroed - Seth was not a daughter of Adam and Eve. Seth was the SON they had after Cain killed Abel and was marked and banished.

Adam and Eve DID have daughters, though. However, as someone mentioned, society was male dominated and women were not mentioned in the Bible unless they were INTEGRAL to the whatever was happening at the time, that was chronicled. I don't remember if the daughters were named.

@ O.P. - I was told that Cain took one of his SISTERS as his wife and then departed on his banishment.

I don't remember how the "other people" were explained to me. I know I did ask who Cain could have been referring to when he got scared of his banishment and who it was that God protected him from by marking him. But, is was soooo long ago that I don't even remember the answer. I don't even know if I believed what I was told or not, because I don't remember the answer I was given (yes, it was THAT long ago). Sorry.
the_mariska
I don't know how do other Churches interpret this, but the Catholic Church says about it something like this. The first historical character in the Bible was Abraham, all of the previous ones are symboles, that illustrate the relationship between God and people. Kain was just a symbol of murder, that existed from the begining of human history, and the fact that God protected him by marking him symbolises that He does still love even the kinslayers.

You just can't take the Bible literally. Here's an example - there are two different descriptions of creation of the world. They both cannot be literally accurate as they are different (First is Genesis 1:1 - 2:3, second Genesis 2:4-24). They both are different ways of coding the same truth: that God created the world, that humans are the creatures that He loves the most, and that He really cares about us and loves us.

Quote:
What do you get when you cross a Jehova Witness with a Unitarian Universalist?

My mum once convinced two Jehova girls that they are wrong, so they keep away from our home. My boyfriend knows the Bible much better than nearly all of them, so they leave us alone immediately. If I were to cope with Jehova Witnesses myself, it'd be not that hard. I'd just ask them to pray together Laughing .
squirrelmaster
sistahgeek wrote:
.. Adam and Eve DID have daughters, though. However, as someone mentioned, society was male dominated and women were not mentioned in the Bible unless they were INTEGRAL to the whatever was happening at the time, that was chronicled. I don't remember if the daughters were named. ..


Just did a little research on the daughter thing, and found this part of the bible.
The Internet wrote:
Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve -- "And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters." This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters."

The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years -- Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, They were commanded to "Be fruitful, and multiply" [Genesis 1:28].


well that answers if he had sisters, but where do the people in the land of nod come from?
i think that before cain got married, maybe some of his sisters went there before him - and that was those people there.
hostjon
Your question also make me wonder where does Cain's wife came from? I've reviewed the Book of Genesis but the scenario jumped into another chapter, where Cain already has his own family and so is Zeth her sister. For that, I will just leave it all to God. Only God knows the answer.


hundred island
CheDragon
Tex_Arcana wrote:
........

That is of course only one interpretation, and I'm sure that others will disagree. With that I'll leave with a joke since I've invoked the name Jehova Witnesses already.

What do you get when you cross a Jehova Witness with a Unitarian Universalist?

Someone that knocks on your door for no apparent reason.


LOL!
Dialogist
If Adam lived to 930, I dare say he knocked out a small population of many generations. Conceiving Seth at 130 isn't bad form for an old/young man. Cain probably married one of eve's daughters from Genesis 5:4. The land of Nod could have also been Adam's offspring of varying generations, however, it doesn't say anywhere that this land was even populated, just that it was a land and that Cane rutted with his wife there. It doesn't say he met her there. Also it says that Cane built a city there and named it after his son, Enoch. How do we feel about turning up to somebody's land uninvited and acting like you run the place? I would think the Bible's first murderer would keep his head down. He probably owned it because he made it from the desert up. The only 'people' mentioned in the land of Nod were 3. Cain, wife and son. This is also consistent with a man wanting to escape avengers, all of which were directly related to Abel, so its my guess that the land was empty. I'd consult Enoch on this but he's apocrypha (unless you're in Ethiopia). He doesn't say anything anyway - I've already read it.
Bikerman
squirrelmaster wrote:
Okay, since adam and eve were the first generation, how could Cain have a wife? did he marry his mother, or did eve have a daughter?
Or did God simply create him a wife??

This question was brought up at school, and i couldn't answer it making me look incredibly stupid, not knowing mine own religion.
i am thinking that eve had a daughter or two, but don't really know. any help would be appreciated!! Very Happy

There are several more 'problems' thrown up by the genesis account.
Remember also that we have the 'giants' and the 'sons of God':
Gensis 6:1-4 wrote:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
The explanation for the 'sons of God' is probably that the ancient Caananite mythology, which had gods of 'storm', 'fire' etc, was 'adapted' by the Hebrews. The 'giants' would probably be the offspring of the human women and the 'sons of God' lesser deities.
Ankhanu
If only the ancient Hebrews had had a proper system of peer review, all of this would have been caught before it went to print... er... scribe.
Dialogist
Ankhanu wrote:

If only the ancient Hebrews had had a proper system of peer review, all of this would have been caught before it went to print... er... scribe.


If only that was the problem. That nobody noticed these verses. I've read everything from Gulliver's Travels to Angel hybrids to Dinosaurus Seth. They were all 'peer reviewed' extensively, time and time again. The House of Hillel and The House of Shammai would often raise Sheol over what was to be included and what not.

The popular interpretation of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 is the Augustine one that is the mostly widely held. There's seems to be a distinct loss of translation in the word "Giant" for me. Nephilim from the Hebrew means "to fall", also including "to cause to fall" and "to kill, to ruin" The confusion probably lies in the second time these 'people' are mentioned in Numbers 13:32-33. And I think the second reading has influenced the first in terms of translation. Being that both are from the Torah and the first alludes to the second ("The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward") seemingly in hindsight, which is some remarkable chronology. What is generally held is that the "Sons of God" were the descendants of Seth (the pure line of Adam), and the "daughters of men" were the descendants of Cain (bad blood). Rib-fodder always get a bad Biblical rap. But if Adam was 930, I have no problem with him being taller than a cedar tree either. Noah's Ark followed immediately after this entry, so I'm guessing if the average man is 75 years old and 5 feet 7 inches tall these days, Noah back then was like 700 years old and 50 feet foot 70 inches and for all the talk of this Great Flood deluge, it may have been somewhat of a shallow puddle or a comparative foot spa. I guess you could say that dinosaurs wouldn't be anything to worry about either. Growly little midgets.
Bikerman
Quote:
“These ‘giants’ were the monstrous progeny of the demon-possessed men and women whose illicit activities led to God's warning of imminent judgment. The Hebrew word is nephilim (‘fallen ones’), a term possibly relating to the nature of their spiritual ‘parents,’ the fallen angels. That they were also physical giants is evident from the fact that the same word is later used in connection with the giants in Canaan at the time of Joshua (Numbers 13:33) and by the fact that the word here was translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word gigantes.” (Morris, The Defender's Bible)

(Morris)
or
Quote:
There were giants in the earth - נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁγιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.

(Clarke)
or
http://bible.org/seriespage/sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-61-8
or
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis6.htm#foot2

or any one of scores of different interpretations, all unsatisfactory.

The 50ft Noah has a few interesting corollaries:
a) the human skeleton must have been constructed from composite/alloys we don't yet have - bone wouldn't work (too heavy and not sufficient tensile strength).
b) presumably a 50ft Noah would have used 'local' measurements for the Ark - making a 'cubit' not 1.5 feet but more like 15ft? The weight-height relationship for humans is non-linear (mass increases faster than height) so Noah would weigh somewhere around 6 tonnes (assuming the skeleton were capable, ie not bone). The ark would then either be 4.5km*750m*450m long (using 'Noah' cubits) or 450ftx75ftx45ft (using 'normal' cubits). In either case it would be the largest wooden boat ever built (for the very good reason that you can't build a wooden boat 450 ft long, let alone 4.5km).
c) To cover the earth to the 'top' of Arrarat would require 13000-16000 ft of water.
d) One wonders where the 50ft fossils are? (Let alone where the normal human skeletons are in the same layer as the dinosaurs mentioned).
Dialogist
The problem with the fallen angel theory is that Jesus said that angels didn't marry, and by marry, he meant ____. I take his word over all prophets (other than Moses, and the only reason I put Moses on a par with him is because he himself insisted on that).

a) The Sauropoda and Supersaurus had cyborg skeletal vertebrae? Come on now, that would definitely require Intelligent Design. I mean they seem scary enough but if they were terminatorsaurs, now that would be awesome! Some irreducible complexity if ever I saw it.

b) You know the ancient measurement for a "cubit" was officially the length of ones forearm. So how long are 50 foot Noah's forearms in local terms?

50 foot Nephilim is not a problem, a 50 foot Nephilim's manhood being presented to the daughters of Cain is my worry. No wonder God punished them.

Of course this largest wooden boat ever could still be dwarfed by the size of a Blue Whale, and if the mass and height difference was universally consistent then the Blue Whale could have been 50 times it's mass too. And being that it survived the Great Flood, Noah merely could have just pulled a Jonah and piggybacked one rather than giving it indigestion. Have you seen the movie 2012? For all our scientific advancement, I for one, even under the suspension of disbelief, was literally astonished that Arks are still the best idea we can come up with. Animals 2 by 2 and all.

c) How tall was Arrarat in 250 BC? And would a Great Deluge really need to reach the summit of mountain tops? Or would around about 80 to 100 feet to submerge the tallest organism be sufficient? I mean in that scenario, Noah doesn't have to do a great deal, just float for a bit. I mean asteroid showers and volcanic ash killed an entire population of dinosaurs globally right? Its my reckoning that if you have that much seismic activity going off at once you're going to get at least 100 feet tsunamis anyway. So which is it? Global catostrophe and mass extinction with water or without? And with a globe that 2/3rds water, is there really any option? Some of those meteors must have hit the sea, some great many earthquakes must have transpired too. But it is telling that when science needed to kill off the dinosaurs, the first thing that sprung to mind was an abomination. The only difference between these two myths is that one appeals to God. Both have equally sufficient and insufficient evidence. And while a great many Creationists flog the Cambrian Explosion to death, they are asking the wrong questions. It's not, "where the hell did all those come from" its more, "what killed them all at once and laminated them about a half million years rockwards." I would suggest that there's been many deluges. And the further you go back, the smaller they'd need to be.


d) Those 50 foot fossils are probably buried with the missing lin...sorry! "Transitional Fossils" (I keep forgetting Evolutionists moved these goalposts). Umm, "Transitional Fossils" (which aren't really transitional), more just one or the other (with mosaic traits, which is all important and convincing) No fin and leg, scale and feather, scale and hair, or anything remotely transitional like that. You know from the breathtakingly infinite amount of species thats been alive on the earth, and the billions upon billions of years they've been here and the best we can do is: 'Just stuff that looks like other stuff'. Well the half whale/half cow fossil, Bikerman. Wherever the billions upon billions of those are, that is where the human hugging a dinosaur fossils can be found too. In stunning macro-technicolor.

There's one or two interesting things on geologist creationist's sites. John McKay has some really interesting artifacts, although nothing groundbreaking. There's one or two interesting things here:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm

But most of the good stuff is being done in Australia. The thing about creationist sites is that I often feel embarrassed to link to them. Often the content can be relevant but it seems in order to believe in God you need to first hire a 5 year old to design your website with crayolas.

There's actually human tracks in a dinosaur fossil along the banks of the Paluxy River but science, although it has been made well aware of them, doesn't seem to be that interested in proving them to be false, and we know it'd leap at the chance, but it probably would really struggle to, and as we both know, there's far too much at stake for that.

The most convincing evidence (although not scientific by any means) for me, is first hand testimony that predates scientific observations of dinosaur. I believe Job from the Book of Job is describing a dinosaur in great detail, from first hand eye witness account. He describes many parts of it, including its habits, its size, what it eats and namely - its tail. If that beast was not a dinosaur, then it was very similar and now extinct. I've heard propositions of hippos and elephants and not have fit the bill. He describes The Bohemoth's tail like a cedar tree. This is before anyone (by science's understanding) could have known what a dinosaur looked like. Aborigines too have some very detailed cave painting of some supposed mythical beast that looks exactly like a specific type of dinosaur (the name of which I forget) but the depiction definitely predated scientific excavation. The Ancient egyptians have similar beasts in their art. While testimony is not scientific, if it predates scientific understanding of even knowledge of said creatures, its not bad. I have no problem with dinosaurs co-existing with human beings at all. I have no problem with some of them still being here from everything I know so far about the limitations of carbon 14, I don't see it as an impossibility.
Bikerman
Dialogist wrote:
a) The Sauropoda and Supersaurus had cyborg skeletal vertebrae? Come on now, that would definitely require Intelligent Design. I mean they seem scary enough but if they were terminatorsaurs, now that would be awesome! Some irreducible complexity if ever I saw it.
No, you need a basic understanding of mechanics to see why. The tallest Sauropods were about 60ft - 10ft taller than your proposed Noah. You simply cannot have a human-shaped skeleton that big. The Sauropods had massive legs and slender upper-bodies. A 50ft Noah, in proportion recognisable as human, would snap at the knee and thigh joints and have a single 'fused' vertebra structure.
Quote:
b) You know the ancient measurement for a "cubit" was officially the length of ones forearm. So how long are 50 foot Noah's forearms in local terms?
About what I said - 15ft.
Quote:
Of course this largest wooden boat ever could still be dwarfed by the size of a Blue Whale
Nope, wrong. Those pesky facts again. A Blue Whale grows to around 35 metres. We have built wooden ships much bigger than that (2-3 times the size).
Quote:
and if the mass and height difference was universally consistent then the Blue Whale could have been 50 times it's mass too.
Oh really? I think not.
Quote:
And being that it survived the Great Flood, Noah merely could have just pulled a Jonah and piggybacked one rather than giving it indigestion. Have you seen the movie 2012? For all our scientific advancement, I for one, even under the suspension of disbelief, was literally astonished that Arks are still the best idea we can come up with. Animals 2 by 2 and all.

'2 by 2' is a mistake made generally by those who haven't read Genesis. 7 (or possibly 7 pairs) of clean animal and fowl, and 2 of the unclean group.
Quote:
c) How tall was Arrarat in 250 BC?
About the same as now. A couple of thousand years is an instant in geological timescales.
Quote:
And would a Great Deluge really need to reach the summit of mountain tops? Or would around about 80 to 100 feet to submerge the tallest organism be sufficient?
How do you submerge a fish?
100 ft would be useless - that would cover only a tiny fraction of the land and, certainly in the middle-east, you wouldn't have a 40 day journey before spotting land.
Quote:
I mean in that scenario, Noah doesn't have to do a great deal, just float for a bit.
What, you mean aside from designing, building the largest ever wooden boat, rounding up 7 of every 'clean' species of animal, planning a feeding/watering/waste system for hundreds of thousands of animals, training the animals to defacate on command, loading several tens of thousands of animals in groups of 7/2 and separating the predator/prey species, organising food for said species and conjuring a way to store it - aside from that you mean?
Quote:
I mean asteroid showers and volcanic ash killed an entire population of dinosaurs globally right?
Perhaps. A single asteroid impact (not a 'shower') certainly hastened the end - which may or may not have already been slowly coming in any case(some research to support both possibilities, so too soon to say).
Quote:
Its my reckoning that if you have that much seismic activity going off at once you're going to get at least 100 feet tsunamis anyway.
What 'reckoning' would that be? Care to show working?
Quote:
So which is it? Global catostrophe and mass extinction with water or without?
Obviously without, since it is physically, geologically and archaeologically impossible, according to everything we know in science, whereas the impact theory is not only possible but also well evidenced.
Quote:
And with a globe that 2/3rds water, is there really any option?
More like 70%, and of course there is an 'option'.
Quote:
Some of those meteors must have hit the sea, some great many earthquakes must have transpired too. But it is telling that when science needed to kill off the dinosaurs, the first thing that sprung to mind was an abomination.
Usual nonsense. There were many hypotheses. The impact theory is pretty well supported by numerous lines of evidence and is therefore best current theory.
Quote:
The only difference between these two myths is that one appeals to God. Both have equally sufficient and insufficient evidence.
More nonsense. One has no evidence and is functionally impossible. The other has plenty of evidence and is not only possible but witnessed and quantified.
Quote:
And while a great many Creationists flog the Cambrian Explosion to death, they are asking the wrong questions. It's not, "where the hell did all those come from" its more, "what killed them all at once and laminated them about a half million years rockwards." I would suggest that there's been many deluges. And the further you go back, the smaller they'd need to be.
You can say that the Moon is green cheese - it will have the same (zero) credibility since it is based on nothing.
Quote:

d) Those 50 foot fossils are probably buried with the missing lin...sorry! "Transitional Fossils" (I keep forgetting Evolutionists moved these goalposts). Umm, "Transitional Fossils" (which aren't really transitional), more just one or the other (with mosaic traits, which is all important and convincing)
More nonsense straight from the creationist book of lies. There are transitional fossils for most of the main animal familiae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Quote:
No fin and leg, scale and feather, scale and hair, or anything remotely transitional like that.
Wrong again - plenty of all of them - and all fitting exactly into the order in which they MUST appear for evolution to work...just like magic but without the bull.

We have a very nice and very predictive timeline, into which each new fossil must (and does) fit.
  • 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes)
  • 3 billion years of photosynthesis
  • 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes)
  • 1 billion years of multicellular life
  • 600 million years of simple animals -
  • ---570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
  • ---550 million years of complex animals
  • ---500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians
  • ---475 million years of land plants
  • ---400 million years of insects and seeds
  • ---360 million years of amphibians
  • ---300 million years of reptiles
  • ---200 million years of mammals
  • ---150 million years of birds
  • ---130 million years of flowers
  • ---65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out
  • ---2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo
  • -----200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today
  • -----25,000 years since Neanderthals died out

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
Quote:
You know from the breathtakingly infinite amount of species thats been alive on the earth,
No. I know of the 10-100 million species that have probably existed (just animals and plants)
Quote:
and the billions upon billions of years they've been here
No, the 600 million years they have been here
Quote:
and the best we can do is: 'Just stuff that looks like other stuff'.

More nonsense. There are a huge range of fossils.
Quote:
Well the half whale/half cow fossil, Bikerman. Wherever the billions upon billions of those are, that is where the human hugging a dinosaur fossils can be found too. In stunning macro-technicolor.
Simply shows stunning ignorance of very basic evolutionary theory.
Quote:
There's one or two interesting things on geologist creationist's sites. John McKay has some really interesting artifacts, although nothing groundbreaking. There's one or two interesting things here:
MacKay is about as dishonest as creationists come. I've met and managed to throw some questions at him, but didn't have time to point out more than the first 10 or so lies that he had told in his 'address'. He has no clue of scientific basics and simply ignores anything that doesn't fit his lunatic theory.



Quote:
But most of the good stuff is being done in Australia. The thing about creationist sites is that I often feel embarrassed to link to them. Often the content can be relevant but it seems in order to believe in God you need to first hire a 5 year old to design your website with crayolas.
The content is never relevant and is normally either breathtakingly stupid, dishonest or both.
Quote:
There's actually human tracks in a dinosaur fossil along the banks of the Paluxy River but science, although it has been made well aware of them, doesn't seem to be that interested in proving them to be false, and we know it'd leap at the chance, but it probably would really struggle to, and as we both know, there's far too much at stake for that.
Complete crap invented by creationists and debunked years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Quote:
The most convincing evidence (although not scientific by any means) for me, is first hand testimony that predates scientific observations of dinosaur. I believe Job from the Book of Job is describing a dinosaur in great detail, from first hand eye witness account. He describes many parts of it, including its habits, its size, what it eats and namely - its tail. If that beast was not a dinosaur, then it was very similar and now extinct. I've heard propositions of hippos and elephants and not have fit the bill. He describes The Bohemoth's tail like a cedar tree. This is before anyone (by science's understanding) could have known what a dinosaur looked like. Aborigines too have some very detailed cave painting of some supposed mythical beast that looks exactly like a specific type of dinosaur (the name of which I forget) but the depiction definitely predated scientific excavation.
More nonsense - it has already been demonstrated that the description is no more similar to a dinosaur than to a hippo or a crocodile.
Quote:
The Ancient egyptians have similar beasts in their art. While testimony is not scientific, if it predates scientific understanding of even knowledge of said creatures, its not bad. I have no problem with dinosaurs co-existing with human beings at all. I have no problem with some of them still being here from everything I know so far about the limitations of carbon 14, I don't see it as an impossibility.
You know next to nothing about any of the science to date, so I doubt it is different with C14 dating. This is just a stream of invented and largely debunked nonsense which even most creationists would be embarrassed by.

I strongly recommend Thunderfoot's debunking of these recurring nonsenses from creationists:
http://biker-den.co.uk/videotv/religion/why-do-people-laugh-at-creationists-thunderfoot-series/gallery.html
captainsuperdude
Seeing as how the double-helix structure was first perceived during a hallucinogenic drug-trip, it wouldn't be too far out to propose that the story is a genetic memory our asexual amphibian ancestors!
Bluedoll
The question should perhaps be did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Or if that will not do, perhaps which came first, the chicken and or the egg? Such questions are fanciful, can be fun at times but give little to the larger questions we should perhaps consider.

We can consider this overall demeanor when questioning the bible. These funny little subject to controversy kinds of questions are really trivial. The more important questions are the ones that might help us, even change our life and the life of others around us in a positive way. If you ask questions that relate to purpose and value then you will get more out of the bible than silly reasoning.

To answer the question however, where did Cain’s wife come from it would be from the grace of God. What better gift to Adam could God give to him than a companion and loving relationship. Is it really important to acquire all knowledge in how this actually took place in regards to the bible?

How that actually occurred is secondary, maybe even at present a mystery or even just something not as important as what we need to know right now from the bible.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Of course this largest wooden boat ever could still be dwarfed by the size of a Blue Whale
Nope, wrong. Those pesky facts again. A Blue Whale grows to around 35 metres. We have built wooden ships much bigger than that (2-3 times the size).

You're in my territory now. ^_^

Correct, the largest wooden boats are ~100 metres. The Ark was (conservatively) around one and a half times that size. Now, on the face of it, that doesn't seem so bad... but wait, there's more.

The reason we abandoned wood in the construction of large ships is that, frankly, wood's a shitty material past a certain size. Since giving up wood, we've created supertankers nearly half a kilometre long - the Queen Mary 2 is more than twice the alleged size of the Ark, and that's not even talking about those friggin huge 20-storey Oasis ships. (i know far more about cruise ships that i should; my mom was a fanatic.)

Why is wood so bad? Well, to understand that, you have to understand that a boat does not just "sit" on the water the way it would on land. Even in a perfectly calm, static environment, the pressure on the hull varies along the length. To understand why, realize that the buoyancy force is equal to the displaced water, and more water is displaced in the fat parts amidships than at the bow or stern, which narrow usually to a point. In other words, sitting perfectly still in perfectly still water, the boat may look stable, but it's really being bent like a banana.

You may be guessing what's coming next. Because, of course, the boat is not sitting in perfectly still water. The boat is rolling and rocking on the waves - even huge boats where you can't see the waves, there are pressure waves running along underneath (even a continent-sized boat would have pressure waves... we know them as tides). In other words, the boat isn't simply being bent like a banana... it's being bent like a constantly shifting wiggly line.

Okay, but so what? So the boat bends, big deal. Well, now you need to understand something about bending. When you take a rectangular plank and bend it... it doesn't stay rectangular. The part on the inside of the bend fattens out under the compressive stress, and the part on the outside shrinks under the tension. In other words, your rectangle is now a trapezoid.

Now imagine a floor made of rectangle planks fit closely side-by-side... then you bend it... what happens? Well, each plank's profile changes, and the planks separate. For a floor, this would ruin the floor (so when the bending is done, the floor is not longer perfect - there are slight spaces between the planks)... for a boat... well i think you can figure out what happens when the planks of a hull start getting spaces between them.

Aaaaand, now we check history to see if the theory is right, and lo!

Turns out that all the biggest wooden ships... leaked like sieves. Some of them leaked so badly they only lasted a few years... others had pumps in them to pump out the water. Many others "cheated" by using a steel support structure. And remember - these were all dozens and dozens of metres shorter than the conservative estimate of the Ark's length.

Ah, but some biblical literalists claim that Noah had some magical type of wood - something we no longer have access to today, that was much, much harder than normal wood. Okay, fine, that means that it would have bent less under the pressure of floating, so it might not have separated enough to allow water in. BUT, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If the material bent less, that means it must hold the energy that would normally be released by bending in the molecular bonds... which makes the material very brittle. It would be, in effect, like building a boat out of petrified wood (or, in the extreme, glass). Now your problem is not bending and deformation... it's that the Ark would snap like a dry twig the first time it crested a swell - and this flood allegedly swallowed the entire Earth in a matter of days... so, ya... there would be some pretty fricken massive swells.

There's a reason no one's made a replica Ark that actually floats, and all have resorted to trickery like this (ya, that's a steel frame underneath (and it's being towed by a tugboat, just off-camera ^_^; ) and, oh yeah, it's only half size):

And the reason is simple:

The whole Ark story is bullshit. The Ark is an engineering impossibility.

This is not "opinion", this is engineering fact. If you disagree with it, don't bother hurling insults at me; instead get together a team and build the damn thing - prove me wrong, and you'll get a Nobel prize in the process. Or, if you can't spare the time or don't live near water, try this: draw out the plan of the Ark, showing all the decks, and show where the animals went. Don't forget the food! (But isn't it odd that no-one's done this yet? Iiiiiinteresting....)
deanhills
Indi wrote:
Or, if you can't spare the time or don't live near water, try this: draw out the plan of the Ark, showing all the decks, and show where the animals went. Don't forget the food! (But isn't it odd that no-one's done this yet? Iiiiiinteresting....)
There have been a number of people who built models such as in the Websites below - if you Google it, it comes up with plenty of links:
http://www.mishkanministries.org/noahsark.php
http://scalednoahsarkmodels2buy.redtienda.net/cat.php?id=158045
Dialogist
All of this belies the fact that a 6 to 8 meter wave just devastated most of Japan.
Lennon
Lennon
Lennon
Em sorry guys but this whole thing is a joke. Genesis isn't at all a true story. Adam came over a hundred thousand years after eve. And lack of geological evidence and mass extinction during the "global flood of noah". Sighs for people who refuse to acknoledge biology and geography facts.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells.html
Dialogist
Lennon wrote:
Adam came over a hundred thousand years after eve.


Interesting how she waited around for a hundred thousand years for an Adam to come along give her some offspring though isn't it? The scientists clearly use the name "Eve" as a metaphor for mother of humanity. "Adam", kinda, sorta had to be there too. The hilarious part of what you linked is that this unassailable scientific method used with the human genome uses the exact same super-scientific method creationists use to determine the time of creation. It adds up ages going backwards (LOL) Lennon, you were not there and neither were any of those scientists. The faith required to go back, coupled with the faith required to believe that already untestable scientific "facts" are indeed accurate, is worse than creationism because it makes several presuppositions based upon several others. The difference is one is meant to be science. Sighs right back at you for believing even newer earth creationist stories cooked up by the same people who ignore the irrevocably complex irreducible nature of the genome itself which in itself basically insists on a designer. It's the jargon right? That's what allures you? It sounds smart. Must be FACT. It's a pretty story that makes sweeping estimates that happen to sit nicely with your scheme of things, truth be told. You'd buy any prince and the toad story if it didn't have a prime mover. Let's say quantum physics created adam and eve, do you believe it now? You sort of have to, don't you?
Bikerman
Complete nonsense.
This argument is frequently deployed by creationists : viz If you were not there then you cannot know.
Aside from the basic fallacy of assuming that if you WERE there you WOULD know, it is a nonsense argument.
I never met my great-grandparents so, using this barmy logic, I cannot assume they existed. My existence is actually not proof, since there could have been some ultra-secret victorian test-tube baby program. So theoretically I may not have any great-grandparents, but it is a reasonable assumption that I did have, and it would require something spectacular for it not to be the case.
The same, only more so, is true with regards to the scientific evidence against the Genesis account.

It is even worse, however, because the Genesis account doesn't simply require incredibly unlikely things to have happened - it actually requires logically impossible events.

PS Scientists do NOT use 'Eve' to mean the mother of humanity. The term 'Eve' is used to refer to the female from whom all current humans are descended - the 'nearest common ancestor' (a completely different thing from saying that Eve was the 'first' human). The term used is, more correctly, 'mitochondrial Eve'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
The notion that this 'eve' required a contemporary 'adam' simply reveals a basic ignorance of the subject.
Bluedoll
In reflection of many religious topics in regard to higher and more immersed realms of consideration in relation to God and the heavenly bodies of the spiritual realm, Adam and Eve signifies a beginning of creation to allow even mortals to comprehend subjects far beyond their capacity of reason using simple science evidence of a contemptuous nonsense of grave proportions. To consider religious subjects from a degrading scientific view is an action of far greater ignorance than being spiritually minded towards biblical scripture. Science can not even begin to measure or compare to God-fearing observance on biblical subjects. This narrow methodical viewpoint can allow only for on -the - surface arguments and rude deductions.
Dialogist
Bikerman wrote:

Complete nonsense.
This argument is frequently deployed by creationists : viz If you were not there then you cannot know.
Aside from the basic fallacy of assuming that if you WERE there you WOULD know, it is a nonsense argument.
I never met my great-grandparents so, using this barmy logic, I cannot assume they existed.


That wasn't really my argument though, nor even (I presume) the John McKay one you were referring to about science without the ability to observe things happening not even being valid as a theory, even, more of a model, and if we're talking models, then creationism follows suite because one is required to accept things which cannot be observed simply because they have been told so, it seems reasonable to them or that they prefer to, or to quote what he actually said, "that's your blind faith position for which you get absolutely nothing" haha. But that's not what I was saying. I was simply suggesting (similarly possibly) that you can believe fancy stories if it sits right with your scheme of things if you so desire. You can even call it science. But don't use it to beat other fairy stories down with because distraction fallacies of authority and power hold no water here. Often (very often) the theory wholly exceeds the available data, or in the case of evolution, the data is often forced to fit the theory. That's cool (completely unsatisfactory and will never be taken seriously as anything other than a Dick and Jane book) but Biblical tales don't need to because they don't present themselves as scientific fact. However, when comes to presenting those """"facts""" as anything other than another fairy tale when the evidence is scant (macro evolution), wishful (mosaic traits) or just pathetically crap (transitional fossils), and we build other facts on this mathematically preposterous notion which seems to be working the working model of all natural sciences these days then we are not even being circular anymore, we are being dogmatic, foolish and pig headed (petitio principii). And we need some new ideas, some new open mindedness or some new evidence to make it worth anything. Because right now, Creationism has a logical prime mover, it is less fanciful and has more integrity, and a priori, it is more logical too simply one the grounds that a bunch of stuff from nothing, for no reason with no future is simply bananas.
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
Or, if you can't spare the time or don't live near water, try this: draw out the plan of the Ark, showing all the decks, and show where the animals went. Don't forget the food! (But isn't it odd that no-one's done this yet? Iiiiiinteresting....)
There have been a number of people who built models such as in the Websites below - if you Google it, it comes up with plenty of links:
http://www.mishkanministries.org/noahsark.php
http://scalednoahsarkmodels2buy.redtienda.net/cat.php?id=158045

Uh huh? A number of people have also built models of the Death Star. What's your point?

For the record, i asked for PLANS for the Ark: as in a consistent set of engineering-quality drawings that could be used to construct an actual, working Ark. i didn't ask for Play-doh or Lego models, or Ark "designs" that feature giraffe heads sticking up out of the decks. That kind of thing wouldn't prove anything except that the Ark story is capable of being grasped by a child, which i hardly think is surprising.

Or, if you think those designs you suggested are actual, plausible designs, then try this: that first model is 1/45 scale, and all the animals are allegedly held on the 2nd deck. Alright, sure, just find out how large the model is, multiply that by 45, and see if that's enough floor space to house 2 (or 7!!!) of every animal. (And that's just the start of the challenge. Next you have to figure out if the lower deck can possibly hold enough water for all the animals and people for 40 days, and if the food deck can hold enough food - bearing in mind that many types of animals eat and drink several times their body weight a day. And even that is not enough - because it's not enough to have enough space to store the animals, you need mechanisms for ventilation, loading/unloading, transport of food/waste to/from the animals... something like the Ark is not a trivial piece of technology.)
tingkagol
I believe it was raining during the flood, so I guess you could cross out water from that list. Smile
deanhills
I refuse to believe that no one has ever worked on a design of Noah's Ark. Although I believe that the story is a myth, the design of the Ark had to have captivated the imagination of engineers enough to explore its architecture. I'm sure if one did a proper search that one would find engineering drawings somewhere.

Here is a study along those lines, which I realize is controversial. I'd like you to look beyond the point of the debate whether it is a rock or an Ark. As that is not why I am presenting it. The paper explores the geometry of "Noah's Ark" and engineers must have gone to plenty of effort to come up with some drawings:
NOAH'S ARK - ITS GEOMETRY
Indi
tingkagol wrote:
I believe it was raining during the flood, so I guess you could cross out water from that list. Smile

Nice try. ^_^; But it only rained for 40 days and nights, followed by 150 days when the waters "prevailed", followed by months of drying. All told, Noah and the animals were on the Ark for a year and two or three months (i'd have to check to be sure). During the drying period, either they'd have to drink stored water, or they'd have to find a way to make the water around them potable - which would usually mean boiling, but then, whence comes the fuel for the fire?

So basically, the Ark would have to hold Noah, his family, all the animals (some in groups of 2, some in groups of 14), and enough food and water for them all for just over a year. As i said, i'd like to see those plans.

See, faced with this kind of absurdity, how is a reasonable, thinking person supposed to react? When someone stands before non-believers and not only insists the Bible is 100% accurate, but dares us to prove otherwise, what should a proper atheist reaction be, in the face of bullshit like this? And this isn't even the most ridiculous part of the Bible!!! What about the wizard duels in Egypt, or talking animals, or people turning into pillars of salt, or dragons or demon-spawned giants? How is a reasonable, rational atheist supposed to respond to people saying that "God is good, God is love, and God can do no evil", when right there in the Bible God himself allegedly says flat out "i create all evil"?

Faced with all that, what other reasonable response is there, other than: you people are crazy, you believe absurd nonsense, and you're so ignorant that you're not even aware of all the facts about the very nonsense that you claim to believe? i mean, let's face it, if someone believed that alien voices were sending them messages, and that many people were secretly lizard-like aliens, and that the Earth was created by aliens as a sort of "Second Life"-like game world, and tried to change the laws of the country in line with those beliefs... we'd put them in an asylum! Other than the power that the current major religions hold, and their sheer numbers, how are they any different?
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Here is a study along those lines, which I realize is controversial. I'd like you to look beyond the point of the debate whether it is a rock or an Ark. As that is not why I am presenting it. The paper explores the geometry of "Noah's Ark" and engineers must have gone to plenty of effort to come up with some drawings:
NOAH'S ARK - ITS GEOMETRY

You know, you have a bad habit of posting links that you don't even properly read, thus forcing me to waste my time reading the link, only to find out that it has nothing to do with what was being talked about.

This is yet another case of that.

That paper does not "explore the geometry of Noah's Ark", it merely rambles on about how much ancient cultures liked things like φ and - oh, look, the proportions of this rock are more or less φ, so maybe it's the Ark!!!1!11! (Or maybe Gilgamesh's. ^_^;) And there are no "drawings" to speak of except for some messy sketches that are about as much of engineering use as this:


Seriously, don't bother posting a link for me to check again, unless YOU have read link, all the way through, and understand it.
LittleBlackKitten
K I'm just gonna point out that baby animals are much smaller and eat much less than adult animals, and thus less food would have had to have been stored...And they probably didn't feed them until they were full, they fed them just enough to keep them alive, same with everyone on the Ark....

You can't just assume the Ark was full of fully grown adult animals and everyone was eating their fills.

I'm positive that they all were in poor health, thin, scraggly, and very hungry.

And I'm not getting into this argument that's gone off on several tangents, but I thought I'd point that out.

FURTHERMORE, now that I think about it, he'd also only need a species root, not the entire chain.

Like, they would only need 2 wolves, not every canine on earth.
Navigator
Hi all, just peaking into the thread, am I off to say that the Bible is just a series of allegories and other stuff and that it can't be taken literal?
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
I refuse to believe that no one has ever worked on a design of Noah's Ark. Although I believe that the story is a myth, the design of the Ark had to have captivated the imagination of engineers enough to explore its architecture. I'm sure if one did a proper search that one would find engineering drawings somewhere.


You're absolutely right to believe that, many have worked on designs... none, however, have succeeded. Working on something and having success are very different ideas.

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
FURTHERMORE, now that I think about it, he'd also only need a species root, not the entire chain.

Like, they would only need 2 wolves, not every canine on earth.


Well, wouldn't that require abandonment of the actual story as factual? It requires eliminating the idea that God created all the animals in their present form... if you take a root stock and require evolution to fill in the gaps to the present diversity of organisms, it contradicts the divine origin of species (I admit that you didn't mention evolution, but it seemed implied, correct me if I'm wrong). The timescale involved between the deluge and modern day is long enough to allow explanation of some speciation, but not the bulk.


I kinda like the point about young animals, though... but the core issues are only slightly alleviated by that concession; the bulk of their magnitude remains.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
That paper does not "explore the geometry of Noah's Ark", it merely rambles on about how much ancient cultures liked things like φ and - oh, look, the proportions of this rock are more or less φ, so maybe it's the Ark!!!1!11! (Or maybe Gilgamesh's. ^_^;) And there are no "drawings" to speak of except for some messy sketches that are about as much of engineering use as this:


Seriously, don't bother posting a link for me to check again, unless YOU have read link, all the way through, and understand it.
Looks as though you ignored what I said Indi, at least Ankhanu provided me with sober minded reasoning that I can wrap my brain cells around. A number of engineers have tried to design "the" ark, but none have been successful yet, obviously. But you suggested that there were no engineering drawings as though no engineer has attempted to design the ark. I'm now repeating my last post: I did a very cursory search on the Internet. The article I provided was one of the first that came up. You completely misrepresented it. It originated as an attempt for a design of the Ark, after a controversial discovery of the Ark in Turkey. This "discovery" has since been debunked. But what is important is that the Ark has captivated the imagination of engineers all over the world, both in the positive and the negative, i.e. proving and disproving the design. The human mind has genius in it, and I'm almost certain that one day someone will come up with your perfect set of engineering drawings. But Ankhanu is correct of course, there has not been a successful set of drawings yet.

I repeat again. I don't believe the story of the Ark in the Bible is factual, it is a myth. But I do believe that engineers may one day be able to design an Ark like that. If they do, that would not be proof that the Ark ever existed. It would be more a case of engineering genius and rising to the challenge of designing the Ark.
Indi
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I refuse to believe that no one has ever worked on a design of Noah's Ark. Although I believe that the story is a myth, the design of the Ark had to have captivated the imagination of engineers enough to explore its architecture. I'm sure if one did a proper search that one would find engineering drawings somewhere.


You're absolutely right to believe that, many have worked on designs... none, however, have succeeded. Working on something and having success are very different ideas.

Indeed. Of course people have tried to draw up plans for Noah's Ark. And of course people have actually tried to build it. i mean, duh. People have been calling the Ark myth ridiculous since before the Renaissance; how could devout Christians resist the temptation to try and prove them wrong?

Of course, the thing is, in a thousand years or more, they still haven't managed to come up with even a half-decent set of answers. What we have are either land-locked replicas like the one in Hong Kong (or the one the creationist nutters in the US are now building, with federal support - what a crime), or cheap tricks like the Dutch one which is only 1:5 scale, and sitting on a barge.

Of course people have tried to prove the myth is real, but all have failed because... it... is... BULLSHIT.

But what bothers me is that the believers don't even care. i mean, i point out the absurdity of the Ark, and do i get a "hm, that's a problem that i'm going to have to look into"? Nope. What i get instead is a bunch of: "but you didn't consider X", where X is anything from the Mount Ararat hoax to, most recently, the idea that Noah only loaded baby animals.

For the record, i'd heard that before. Yeah, i've heard them all before. i've also heard that Noah specifically loaded pregnant animals, so that the offspring would serve as food for the carnivores (or Noah's family). i've heard such wacky theories as that God magically made all the predators herbivores (or that they had been herbivores before the flood, and were only made carnivore after). i've seen attempts to figure out the loading list that make arguments such as that there were no hippos or giraffes on the Ark because they weren't mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament (or because Noah only loaded animals that were close by, as in, within walking distance (for the animals)). Oh yeah, i've heard the "type" argument before (that Noah only took two (or fourteen) of each TYPE of animal, where "type" is loosely defined, but allows them to lump all dogs into a single pair, and so on). *yawn* i've heard them all. Still won't float.

But here's the thing. Why bother telling me what i didn't take into account in my reckoning. Why not just do the reckoning? If someone thinks i didn't consider that having starving, baby animals would make all the difference, then why just tell me? Why not show me? See, what's going to happen if they really haven't figured it out is that i'm going to do some simple, stupid calculation to show why it's still fails, and they're not going to thank me, they're only going to get madder and think i'm that much more of a dick... even though the truth is that i've just done their work for them, you're welcome.

Observe.

Let's a pick an animal that is pretty non-controversial: the cow. i think we can all agree there must have been a cow on the Ark (in fact, probably 7 because they are "clean" animals). Now, a calf that has been weaned (no longer dependent on its mother) eats between 10-15 kilos (depending on the type of grass and the breed of cow) MINIMUM... this is not going to be a very healthy calf, and in fact, on those rations for that long it will probably grow up stunted. But regardless, it would probably survive. So basically, that calf needs around 2 tonnes of food for its time on the Ark. Got that? One animal. One young animal. One young, starving animal. 2 tonnes of food. That's not including water, either. Or storage containment weight.

Let's scale that up now. As clean animals, there will be seven female calves, and seven males. The males actually eat more (i've given female estimates), but let's ignore that. So those 14 calves will require 28 tonnes of food. But let's step back for a minute. Assuming calves are roughly average (because some animals will eat far more - for example, elephants will eat nearly 10 times as much - and others far less), that means a single pair will need 4 tonnes of food (only, not counting water and other incidentals). Now, i've seen estimates of the number of "types" of animals on the Ark as low as 250-300. If we assume one pair per type (which we know is low, because some types have seven pairs) that means we can estimate around 1000 tonnes of food - food alone! not including water! and not including the weight of the animals.

Now the largest wooden cargo ships ever built carried ~3000 tonnes. The Ark was roughly one and a half times their size, so let's estimate it can carry ~5000 tonnes. Now with our very conservative estimates, we've blown 20% of that already. And our estimates were absurdly low. We need to double them at least to get something approaching a reasonable number. And then we need to consider water, the weight of support materials, and more. The weight of the water will be around 2-3 times the weight of the food, on average for most animals. So you see, even with absurdly low estimates, just with food and water we've blown the cap off a reasonable estimate for the Ark's carrying capacity. And you know what? We didn't even count the weight of the animals. ^_^;

So no, sorry, even with baby animals - starving baby animals - doesn't work.

(For the record, of course, i could have pointed out that young animals eat a much larger percentage of their body weight than adult animals. Plus, they would have taken that much longer to repopulate their own species - which really puts a cramp on the predator types, hm? But, hard numbers do the job just as well.)

Seriously, don't tell me that i'm clueless about the Ark - just tell me the answers. If you think i'm missing something, just tell me what i'm missing, and why it solves the problem. Hell, let's start with a list of the animals on the Ark. That should be easy to find, right? (Actually, i know it won't.) You'd think someone's done this calculation. (Actually, i know people have tried and saw the truth - that it just don't work - and then kept quiet about it.) So, let's see it. If it's so obviously workable that i am clueless for not being able to figure it out, why are the believers not sharing the results with the world? Seriously, if you think it's possible, ask Christian engineers: why hasn't someone built it yet (or at least drawn up legitimate design plans)?

deanhills wrote:
Looks as though you ignored what I said Indi, at least Ankhanu provided me with sober minded reasoning that I can wrap my brain cells around.

? How did i ignore your post? i said flat out, i looked at the "engineering drawings" and they're bunk. They are NOT an attempt to provide a design for the Ark. You are plain wrong about that (and i told you so, plainly). i'll forgive you for failing to understand, but what they are is rather an (abysmal) attempt to show that the that thing in Turkey could be the Ark. Follow?

If not, let me try and put it in simpler English. Suppose you found a "thing" partially preserved in rock, and you wanted to prove it was once the Syracusia (a legendary Greek ship). You could look up the dimensions for the Syracusia - 100 cubits by 45 cubits - and see if your "thing" is roughly the same size. Then you could look at the shape of your "thing", and see if it would float, and, if so, how would it sit in the water (would it be too low for a transport ship so that it would be swamped by waves, or would it be so high it would rock back and forth and maybe tip?). If your "thing" is roughly the right size, and if it will sit right in the water, then it might be the Syracusia.

THAT is what those drawings are. They are NOT drawings of the Ark, they are an attempt to show that that "thing" they found is roughly Ark-ish in size, and would float about right. There is no way that you can even remotely claim that those are design drawings for anything - let alone the Ark. They are NOT DESIGN DRAWINGS, they are simply recorded measurements and calculations on a sketch, not plans to design anything. It's the same concept as if you draw a sketch of a roughly human shape and record someone's dimensions on it so that you can get clothes for them that fit or calculate whether they'll fit through a door... you could not use that drawing to design a human being, because it is NOT A DESIGN DRAWING.

i did not ignore your post, i responded directly to it. i said you were wrong - and i said precisely why you were wrong - and i said you were clueless, and now i'm saying it again. And i told you that if you don't check or understand something, don't... bother... linking... to it. Is that so crazy? If "don't post a link to something you haven't read or understood" is not "sober minded reasoning that [you] can wrap [your] brain cells around", how much more clear and rational can i make it?

Furthermore, i never even hinted that no one had ever tried to design the Ark. Duh, i even provided a link to a bunch of attempts to recreate the Ark. What i implied was that NO ONE HAS EVER SUCCEEDED. i didn't ask for people's attempts. What did i ask for? i asked for actual plans, did i not? And that's the point. Many people have tried to come up with designs for the Ark. All have failed. As i said: There's a reason no one's made a replica Ark that actually floats, and all have resorted to trickery....
Related topics
How did you hear about FRIHost ?
Halo 2 - Best online game?
Which messenger do you use?
Herman Hesse
ME
Alternate Realities
searched for the term "google"
WHERE DID WINDOWS VISTA GET ITS NAME
Imagine a world without Religion
Who wants to come with me and hide in the sky?
How did the universe come to be, if there is no God?
Where did the Universe come from?
Where does the money come from?
Cameron and Comfort to release altered Origin of Species
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.