Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplate Theory,ley Lines And The Search For The Tree Of Life


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Manumuskin

Manumuskin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Jersey
  • Interests:Canoeing,Caving,Hiking,Primitive Skills,Biblical History Archaeology and Eschatology. Creation Science.reading mostly history American and ancient.Studying Israelite roots of American colonists.Historical Survey stone hunting.Orienteering map compass and GPS.Map Freak.
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • south Jersey USA

Posted 02 January 2017 - 12:40 PM

I am a supporter of the Hydroplate Theory and have a sort of attached theory of my own.Does anyone think it possible that some of the megaliths from of old such as Stonehenge,Angkor Wat.Easter Island and so forth that occasionally appear to be lined up in circles around the earth may have been the post Flood people trying to make sense of the new topography after the Fl0od? With the earth Roll even the heavens would have been skewed so perhaps they were using these creations including the babel tower to try and pinpoint old locations on the old earth maybe not even realizing those old places were now either under thousands of feet of sediment or at the bottom of the oceans. Perhaps They were searching for the Tree of Life in the Garden.God had left angels guarding it and I think perhaps the Pre Flood population along with the Angels that had come down and made giants were trying to form a plan to storm the garden and take the Tree of Life so God allowed the Flood to prevent that.The Ham spread the word after the flood to his children and grand children and they started a hunt to pinpoint the Tree.Meanwhile Shem who was righteous built the pyramids and figured it all out and went to Jerusalem and founded a city over the tree to protect it if need be.Meanwhile at Babel ,Hams entourage also figured it out and prepared for war.God knew nothing would stop them so he whammied them with 70 different languages,one for each of Noah"s kids and grandkids. There are thousands of feet of Limestone under Jerusalem with accompanying caves Could God have miraculously preserved the Tree of Life under there to bring it up again at the Millenium or the New Jerusalem? We must eat of this tree for to have eternal life yet we cannot have it till God gives us hearts of flesh instead of hearts of stone.Devils that live forever God will not have.Does anyone think this theory holds any water? Pun Intended.



#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 January 2017 - 01:16 PM

Seems very speculative. I don't think you should put must stock in a tree giving eternal life. Christ said that "he that lives and believes in me shall never die". It's not about the tree, just like it's not about baptism.

 

People tend to fall into the trap of religionism, where they make an object their saviour, such as the holy grail. I'm not saying you are doing that but it can be easy to think that an object or thing is holy.

 

When God said they should make a serpent and all those that looked at it would be healed, it was just an act of faith. It doesn't mean the serpent itself on the stick, was a special object. 

 

I think the tree of life is a spiritual matter, it has little to do with natural trees and I don't think we can do anything other than guess about that type of thing.

 

My answer is to your theory of them building to pinpoint locations, as with all speculative theories, "could be". But I don't get too hung up on it. I love all of the exciting, "could be"s even if I know that some of them are more likely to be, "not likely", such as the ark surviving on Ararat somehow, preserved in ice, just in time to come forth when Ken Ham builds his one. ;)

 

:)



#3 Manumuskin

Manumuskin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Jersey
  • Interests:Canoeing,Caving,Hiking,Primitive Skills,Biblical History Archaeology and Eschatology. Creation Science.reading mostly history American and ancient.Studying Israelite roots of American colonists.Historical Survey stone hunting.Orienteering map compass and GPS.Map Freak.
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • south Jersey USA

Posted 03 January 2017 - 01:04 PM

I personally believe Bill Cornutes evidence that the Ark sits on Mount Suleiman (Solomon) in Iran. The Tree of Life was stated in genesis to be the tree Adam and Eve needed to eat from to have eternal life and they were expressly kicked out of the garden with Cherubim placed to guard it to keep them from the Tree of Life.This same Tree will be in the New Jerusalem which is another factor leading me to conclude it may be under present day Jerusalem. The act of eating of the tree may be an act of faith like baptism that allows God to bestow eternal life.

 Yes this is very speculative, definitely why I"m not presenting it as fact.Just throwing it out there to see what folks bounce off of it.It relates to the Hydroplate Theory in that the earth roll would definitely leave the folks coming off the Ark severely disoriented.If nothing else they may have tried to locate some of their old cities but I think it's much more then that.Perhaps Nimrod being a Mighty Hunter may not have meant a hunter of animals but a hunter of the Tree? The Great Pyramid at Gaza appears to be some sort of highly accurate sighting device.One legend claims it was built by Shem.It is obviously post Flood since it sets on limestone which is sedimentary.I believe it was built very soon after the Flood to help establish the old Latitude Longitude grid so as to locate  something.Has Walt Brown ever pin pointed where he believes the old Poles and Equator to be? I"d be much interested in making a grid based on those points and line but I wonder if fixing the old grid would help since Jerusalem probably slid along with everything else so the roll would only be part of the equation.They have to figure out how far the land masses slid and in what directions.If Shem or Nimrod could figure this all out they were definitely smarter then me.Well if I"m correct I can inquire  of Shem and Jesus what the pyramids were all about and the tree is coming back,from where? we'll find out then :-)



#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 03 January 2017 - 03:13 PM

The Great Pyramid at Gaza appears to be some sort of highly accurate sighting device.One legend claims it was built by Shem.It is obviously post Flood since it sets on limestone which is sedimentary.I believe it was built very soon after the Flood


The date of the Flood calculated from the Bible is actually about 200 years after the date we know the Pyramid of Giza was built. Even if you assert the Egyptologists are all wrong and the pyramids must have been built later so that your biblical timeline isn't messed up how was there enough people about in Egypt "very soon after the Flood" to build it ? How soon are you talking about ?



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2017 - 08:02 AM

 

 

Wibble: The date of the Flood calculated from the Bible is actually about 200 years after the date we know the Pyramid of Giza was built. Even if you assert the Egyptologists are all wrong and the pyramids must have been built later so that your biblical timeline isn't messed up how was there enough people about in Egypt "very soon after the Flood" to build it ? How soon are you talking about ?

 

Of course the assumption here is the acceptance of uniformatarian, evolutionary timelines, Wibble. There is no date given in the bible, specifically, and technically speaking, for the flood, because those figures are extrapolated from genealogies. There is definitely room for error. Even CMI, when they give their calculation for the age of the earth gave something like a + 500 or - 500 area meaning they would accept the earth may be 5,900 years old, or 6, 400 years old, and so forth.

 

Secondly, we would take direct facts as much more serious science than dating methodologies based on guesses. That is to say, factually speaking, we see fossiliferous content in the rocks of the pyramids, meaning that the rock would have to be post-flood, if we assume that most of the fossiliferous rocks were created by the flood. (Note I say it is an assumption, so as to avoid circular reasoning.)

 

 

 

CMI: (a source I hardly use :D);Irrespective of whether the pyramid blocks were all carved from natural stone or some cast as concrete using ground-up rock, the presence of abundant marine fossils points to the raw building materials having been obtained post-Flood. (How else could you get ‘seashells in the desert’?) So the ancient Egyptian culture arose after the events of Genesis 6–9, not before.

http://creation.com/pyramids-seashells

 

So we would take those facts as more consequential. 1. You have fossils in the stones. 2. You have seashells, and that would be consistent evidence for a flood as how would they get there in a desert?

 

Sure, you could argue that long ago it wasn't a desert, as that might fit the evidence, but by the same rule we can also say it would fit with there being a flood. 

 

Thirdly, the exact date of the flood of Noah will never be known, so if it was a nad earlier or a nad later, we can simply never know, there is no recorded document which gives us figures. If the egyptologists are off by 75 years and we creationists are off by 75 years, that would give you 150 years. Feasible, yes, certainly a possibility, and far from an impossibility.



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2017 - 10:22 AM

 

 

Manumuskin: I personally believe Bill Cornutes evidence that the Ark sits on Mount Suleiman (Solomon) in Iran

 

I've just read several articles about it on several sites, I've actually never heard of this one before. I read an article from BASE and in some ways it makes sense that Ararat would not be Mount Ararat in Turkey.

 

They seem to predicate this on two main factors.

 

1. The bible says the ark came to rest on, "the mountains of Ararat", and Mt Ararat in Turkey seems to be a large mountain on a plain. (Seems reasonable to dismiss Mt Ararat from this fact alone really.)

2. The bible says after the flood the people came "from the east", to shinar.

 

There is some confusion here, as it seems to me it could be interpreted not that they travelled FROM Urartu to Shinar, after the flood, but simply that people at that time, from wherever they were dwelling, either came from or to the east to Shinar from their settlement.

 

If we look at what Genesis says in context, to me at least it does not necessarily say that they came from Urartu (Ararat) but it seems ambigious;

 

BASE say;

 

http://www.baseinsti...es/noahs_ark/17

 

 

Base: The Bible gives us a clear direction for the landing location of the Ark, and it is not in the direction of Turkey. The Bible says that the survivors of the flood journeyed "from the east" and subsequently settled in "Shinar" (a region generally known as Babylon)

 

BUT, here is what Genesis says;

 

These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.

11 Now the whole earth [af]used the same language and [ag]the same words. It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and [ah]settled there.

 

This comes AFTER a long genealogy of the families of Noah that may have already settled somewhere that was not near Urartu (Ararat).

 

It seems confusing, Urartu is south east of the black sea it seems, in Turkey, according to some sources, yet I admit that it makes more sense for the mountains of Ararat not to be Mt Ararat in Turkey but could there be a mountain region in Turky regarded as Ararat.

 

A convoluted investigation based on a lot of conjectural joining of dots, IMHO.

 

Suffice to say, the claim the beam-like rocks they found on Mount Solomon in Iran, is incredibly tenuous, perhaps the weakest kind of circumstantial evidence given we just seem to be looking at some rocks that look like beam-shapes.

 

Is that it though? That's all I could find, the beam-like rocks, which if I am honest, just looks like rock.

 

IMHO, there might be merit in arguing Ararat was in Iran, but it hinges on an ambigious comment in Genesis alone it seems. Whether that means it is Mt Solomon in Iran? Well, IMHO that's an even weaker claim.

 

I am not being dogmatic, BASE start their article with a reasonable disclaimer and I would agree with them about what they say, that really it's not a thing we can dogmatically state with certainty, when we argue the ark is in X location, and it is a shame that the bible just doesn't give more specifics about where the mountains of Ararat actually were. 

 

Also a fellow claimed to have saw it in Iran. Others claim to have saw it on Mt Ararat, we have to treat such claims with a large pinch of salt given there can't be an ark on Ararat and an ark in Iran, unless you are saying there were two floods, and the second flood was Noah's twin ark, like the Titanic had a sister ship the Lusitania. 

 

;) :P

(My provisional conclusion is the ark in Iran seems a pretty tenuous case. You have to kind of reason in this manner; "well if the bible actually meant X as we think it does, then we can infer P", and that type of reasoning is always going to be wobbly. But that doesn't mean the other cases are any more or less valid, so I am not picking on you, this is just what I thought about what I read. I would never be arrogantly dogmatic and say, "this certainly can't be correct," but it doesn't seem like the most solid theory.)



#7 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 06 January 2017 - 04:55 PM

Of course the assumption here is the acceptance of uniformatarian, evolutionary timelines, Wibble.


Like what ? We're not talking about deep time here, it's not even prehistory.
 

Secondly, we would take direct facts as much more serious science than dating methodologies based on guesses. That is to say, factually speaking, we see fossiliferous content in the rocks of the pyramids, meaning that the rock would have to be post-flood, if we assume that most of the fossiliferous rocks were created by the flood. (Note I say it is an assumption, so as to avoid circular reasoning.)


The fact of the fossiliferous content of the pyramid blocks is irrelevant to the dating of the pyramids. Indeed, you have to make the (totally unsupported) assumption that the limestone was laid by your global flood just 4000 odd years ago in order to therefore assert that the pyramids are post flood.
 

So we would take those facts as more consequential. 1. You have fossils in the stones. 2. You have seashells, and that would be consistent evidence for a flood as how would they get there in a desert?
 
Sure, you could argue that long ago it wasn't a desert, as that might fit the evidence, but by the same rule we can also say it would fit with there being a flood. 


No it wouldn't. How would a flood rush in over the desert and lay down limestone containing fossils of animals all belonging to a distinct habitat (shallow, tropical marine). Don't you think that kind of assemblage (the abundant Nummulites foraminifera, and occasional starfish, sand dollars and urchins) suggests that it was indeed such an environment that gradually formed the limestone ? It's really not logical to imagine a flood would deposit the rock because it wouldn't retain this distinctive character (you'd have various sediment and fossil remains mixed in as it rushed across the land). Plus, don't you believe the whole world was a lush paradise pre flood with no deserts ?
 

Thirdly, the exact date of the flood of Noah will never be known, so if it was a nad earlier or a nad later, we can simply never know, there is no recorded document which gives us figures. If the egyptologists are off by 75 years and we creationists are off by 75 years, that would give you 150 years. Feasible, yes, certainly a possibility, and far from an impossibility.


Known historical dates have been corroborated by radiocarbon dating (e.g. of seeds found in the sarcophagus) so there is a high degree of confidence in the timeline. Even if you do allow for some small shift in dates do you really believe there would be enough people about in the area so soon after the flood to cut out and shift 2.3 million blocks each weighing several tonnes each. And that's just for the Cheops pyramid, there's the others too. And also the smaller ones further south at Saqqara which are even older than the Giza pyramids. Doesn't really add up does it ?



#8 Manumuskin

Manumuskin

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Jersey
  • Interests:Canoeing,Caving,Hiking,Primitive Skills,Biblical History Archaeology and Eschatology. Creation Science.reading mostly history American and ancient.Studying Israelite roots of American colonists.Historical Survey stone hunting.Orienteering map compass and GPS.Map Freak.
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • south Jersey USA

Posted 07 January 2017 - 06:50 PM

Taken literally the Bible would give a date for the Flood of about 4333 years ago.Literally is generally how I take it. Genesis said Noah journeyed from the east to Shinar.That means He headed west.Shinar is the modern day Mesopatamian valley which is west of Iran and south of Turkey so I"d say Iran would be a good bet for the ark location.Fossils in the pyramid rocks and limestone under the pyramids would definitely mean they were built post Flood.I"d say they were probably built just prior to Abraham which would give 300 years to establish a population to build the pyramids and the Tower of babel or close to it anyway.Thats about ten reproductive generations or more.Yes I"d say they could have built quite a population by then.Sehm actually outlived Abraham and I believe died during the lifetime of Jacob.



#9 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 January 2017 - 04:00 PM

A human population increase from 8 to 10,000+ in just 300 yrs ? Impressive, particularly in a post apocalyptic world of destroyed ecosystems and prior to modern healthcare.  And all of them headed off to the Giza plateau to devote their time and energy building enormous pyramids in the desert. Remarkable !



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 January 2017 - 07:39 AM

 

 

Wibble: A human population increase from 8 to 10,000+ in just 300 yrs ? Impressive, particularly in a post apocalyptic world of destroyed ecosystems and prior to modern healthcare.  And all of them headed off to the Giza plateau to devote their time and energy building enormous pyramids in the desert. Remarkable !

 

You have to think in the context of what was said. The list in Genesis of noah's family is very extensive, before Babel. We know that if a lot of people were in Shinar when they built the Babel tower, then there would have been enough people to build a pyramid a short time later.

 

If you read what CMI says in that long article about the dynasties, they're actually not as strong as you think, and it seems the dates are all agreed to be strong by neurotic agreement.

 

Like I said, even if the flood was 50 years earlier and the pyramids 50 to 100 years later, it's conceivable it would have been feasible. To say that with such a long line of dynasties modern archaeologists can't as little as a 100 years off the target, seems like a pretty dogmatic position you hold, I don't recall any dating method that would get you within precisely 40 or so years of an event, and all recorded data can only be correlated with other dates we think happened at a certain exact time.

 

I don't think anyone would make a dogmatic assertion that the dates are accurate within one century, except evolutionists that don't want there to have been a flood.

 

The dates from the bible itself have a fudge-factor also, even according to people like CMI, who very definitely stick to a dogmatic 6,000 years but their evaluation of the genealogies gave a margin-of-error of about 1,000 years. 

 

What does that mean? It means even though they are pretty certain of the general date of the flood, they wouldn't dogmatically claim that the flood had to happen within one particular century.

 

So then where do you get your date of Noah's flood? From bible inerrantists like CMI and AIG. And what would they say, that the date has to be correct within decades? Not likely, they would allow a margin-of-error.

 

Conclusion; if the Egyptologists are wrong by 35 years and CMI are wrong by 70 years, then that gives you another 100 years to play with, meaning that although Wibble sees this as some sort of major complaint, not many other people would.

 

:P



#11 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 11 January 2017 - 05:04 PM

I don't think anyone would make a dogmatic assertion that the dates are accurate within one century, except evolutionists that don't want there to have been a flood.


Do you reckon the dates are fudged just so that it scuppers the flood story ? Do you think the researchers who study these things care one jot if the ancient Egypt timeline fits in with YEC dogma or not ? Perhaps because you have zero evidence that your supposed flood occurred at the particular date other than what is claimed from the Bible then you have no choice but to come up with some spurious reason why the pyramids just had to have been built much later than is accepted.
 

Conclusion; if the Egyptologists are wrong by 35 years and CMI are wrong by 70 years, then that gives you another 100 years to play with, meaning that although Wibble sees this as some sort of major complaint, not many other people would.
 
:P


100 years shift still isn't enough, even with that the pyramids are already there when Noah's building his Ark.

How can you be so credulous that humans, and the rest of life on Earth could prosper so rapidly after the entire planet has been ruined ? Do you just turn a blind eye to the obvious multitude of issues with that ?



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 January 2017 - 04:31 AM

Wibble, I just don't think the dynasties are accurate, having read why in that article from CMI. My jaw dropped when I saw how tenuous it all is. Do I really care that some secularist science from Egyptology, have assumed there was no flood and thus dated their dynasties in accordance with evolutionary assumptions? Not really. 

 

I still think it's no big deal, my gap of 100 years is only an example, if CMI/AIG are wrong and the flood was just a nad earlier, say 75 years, and the dynasties were say 100 years off, that's nearly 200 years you now have available! :D

 

It seems a lot more reasonable than pretending some long history of evolution happened with infinite animal lineages and no evolutionary history for any of them, when the fossil record is clearly a record of catastrophe with animals generally preserved not while rotting and decomposing, but while alive, fighting, giving birth, some with their heads thrown back in the suffocation position, etc...and all the other reasons and facts a flood can explain such as polystrate fossils and planation, but that evo-years can't explain.

 

 

 

Wibble: How can you be so credulous that humans, and the rest of life on Earth could prosper so rapidly after the entire planet has been ruined

 

Because in short, God just aint dumb.

 

:P



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 January 2017 - 08:14 AM

Wibble, I just don't think the dynasties are accurate, having read why in that article from CMI. My jaw dropped when I saw how tenuous it all is. Do I really care that some secularist science from Egyptology, have assumed there was no flood and thus dated their dynasties in accordance with evolutionary assumptions? Not really. 

You are aware that NONE of the dynasty dates rely on "evolutionary assumptions," don't you?  Egyptology relies on records and artifacts left by the ancient Egyptians.  Not the Bible.  Not the flood.  And certainly, not evolution.

 

Strawman anyone?

 

How do you support the claim that Egyptology assumes there was no flood?

 

I still think it's no big deal, my gap of 100 years is only an example, if CMI/AIG are wrong .....

CMI and AIG have already declared that any evidence not consistent with their literal reading of Genesis is INVALID BY DEFINITION.  Because of that, you can not pretend they are even attempting an objective evaluation of the evidence in any way, shape, or form.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 January 2017 - 08:23 AM

 

Piasan: CMI and AIG have already declared that any evidence not consistent with their literal reading of Genesis is INVALID BY DEFINITION.

 

 You can not pretend they are, in any way, taking an objective look at the evidence.

 

CMI done an article which was pretty thorough, they allow room-for-approximation because the bible doesn't give the months for peoples age in the genealogies. AIG say, and I quote, "approximately 4,359 years ago", and CMI and I quote, say, "4,304" (paraphrased to take in the 2000 years AD).

 

So they themselves disagree by sixty years. 

 

I see no argument yet as to why the dynasties are solid. Nor do the main creationist apologists dogmatically insist on a certain year but use the term, "approximately".

 

It seems likely that if the Egyptologists do not take into account the biblical reference for Noah's flood then one of the unspoken assumptions of their argument is that the bible can't be trusted for Noah's flood, meaning they implicitly are going from an evolutionary worldview.



#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 January 2017 - 09:29 AM

CMI done an article which was pretty thorough, they allow room-for-approximation because the bible doesn't give the months for peoples age in the genealogies. AIG say, and I quote, "approximately 4,359 years ago", and CMI and I quote, say, "4,304" (paraphrased to take in the 2000 years AD).

 

So they themselves disagree by sixty years. 

 

I see no argument yet as to why the dynasties are solid. Nor do the main creationist apologists dogmatically insist on a certain year but use the term, "approximately".

If you want to allow for the months in the listed ages, there are 42 generations leading up to Jesus.  At most, that would be 42 years.  If we figure an average of 6 months (a half year) on the ages, that would be only 21 years.  Normally, when we have a list like that of 42 data points, we take the position that "random errors cancel out" and ignore the rounding.

 

 

How do you support the claim that Egyptology assumes there was no flood?

 

CMI and AIG have already declared that any evidence not consistent with their literal reading of Genesis is INVALID BY DEFINITION.  Because of that, you can not pretend they are even attempting an objective evaluation of the evidence in any way, shape, or form.

 

It seems likely that if the Egyptologists do not take into account the biblical reference for Noah's flood then one of the unspoken assumptions of their argument is that the bible can't be trusted for Noah's flood, meaning they implicitly are going from an evolutionary worldview.

Not taking the Biblical reference into account doesn't support a claim that Egyptologists take a position (either way) on Noah's flood or evolution.  By not taking the Bible into account, they are explicitly attempting to be objective..... unlike those who have already declared conflicting views are invalid by definition.

 

The worst you can say is their position is "non-Biblical."  



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 January 2017 - 02:54 PM

 

 

  Piasan: At most, that would be 42 years

 

Doesn't sound like much does it? But then if a generation is roughly 25 years for arguments sake, and we begin for arguments sake, with 4 couples having 4 children each, then after 25 years of disembarking, that's 16 new children.

 

You may then think, "big deal, only 16 for each generation?" No indeed, now for arguments sake let's say all the couples had kids at the same time, if there were 8 couples the next time, that's 32 in the next the generation, not counting the longevity of the parents lives in biblical times.

 

How many generations in Wibble's 300 years? let's say 12.  So for the next generation;

 

75 years - 16c X 4 = 64 

100 years - 32c X 4 = 128

125 years - 64c X 4 = 256

150 years - 128c X 4 = 512.

175 years - 256c X 4 = 1024

200 years - 512c X 4 = 2048

225 years - 1024c X 4 = 4096

250 years - 2048 X 4 = 8192

275 years - 4096 X 4 = 16, 384

300 years - 8192 X 4 = 32,768 a generation.

 

So after only 300 years you go from 16 new children per generation to 32, 000.

 

So now remember your "42 years", that's the difference between tens of thousands of people.

 

With that in mind, let us remind ourselves of what Wibble's complaint was;

 

 

 

Wibble: A human population increase from 8 to 10,000+ in just 300 yrs ?

 

Now I'm not saying I am right that there would be that many couples and that many kids, but the chances are you're going to have at least 15-20,000 people after 300 years, easily.

 

You see these complaints people make usually at first seem like good complaints, it's much the same with the ark-feasibility study. "oh man, those animals just can't have fitted" but when you do the maths, it turns out there was too much room on the ark!



#17 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 12 January 2017 - 04:39 PM

How many generations in Wibble's 300 years? let's say 12.


Its not my 300 years, its what Manumuskin pulled out of his hat with no justification.
 

So for the next generation;

 
75 years - 16c X 4 = 64 
100 years - 32c X 4 = 128
125 years - 64c X 4 = 256
150 years - 128c X 4 = 512.
175 years - 256c X 4 = 1024
200 years - 512c X 4 = 2048
225 years - 1024c X 4 = 4096
250 years - 2048 X 4 = 8192
275 years - 4096 X 4 = 16, 384
300 years - 8192 X 4 = 32,768 a generation.
 
So after only 300 years you go from 16 new children per generation to 32, 000.


I'm well aware that exponential growth will get you to high numbers in short time but you are assuming that 100% of children survive until reproductive age. Before modern healthcare child mortality was very high (globally 40% by 5th birthday in the 1800s)and giving birth was a risky business for the mothers. Also of course you have disease, conflict and natural disasters that cull populations. Sure you can play with numbers but the real world isn't as simple as that is it. Think I've read Noah and his wife didn't have more children anyway so you have 3 initial couples not 4. Plus you are assuming that pretty much the entire world population all go to Egypt. What about the other great civilizations that existed at a similar time, the Chinese dynasties or the Indus Valley for example ?

You ignored the following in post #5, any answers ?
 
 

No it wouldn't. How would a flood rush in over the desert and lay down limestone containing fossils of animals all belonging to a distinct habitat (shallow, tropical marine). Don't you think that kind of assemblage (the abundant Nummulites foraminifera, and occasional starfish, sand dollars and urchins) suggests that it was indeed such an environment that gradually formed the limestone ? It's really not logical to imagine a flood would deposit the rock because it wouldn't retain this distinctive character (you'd have various sediment and fossil remains mixed in as it rushed across the land). Plus, don't you believe the whole world was a lush paradise pre flood with no deserts ?

 

Now I'm not saying I am right that there would be that many couples and that many kids, but the chances are you're going to have at least 15-20,000 people after 300 years, easily.


I seriously doubt that for the reasons I've given, particularly when they are trying to survive on a destroyed planet. What did they grow to eat ? Do you think there would be fruit bushes and crop plants popping up when everything is buried in kilometres of mud ? Even if they had saved seeds from before the flood (did they ?) they would have to wait months at best for a harvest.
 

You see these complaints people make usually at first seem like good complaints, it's much the same with the ark-feasibility study. "oh man, those animals just can't have fitted" but when you do the maths, it turns out there was too much room on the ark!


I don't know if you could physically fit a pair of every land creature on the Ark (I doubt it) but they sure wouldn't survive very long and the Ark would sink anyway. There's a lot of extinct animals to cater for us well, dinosaurs etc.
 



#18 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 January 2017 - 03:10 AM

 

 

Wibble: I'm well aware that exponential growth will get you to high numbers in short time but you are assuming that 100% of children survive until reproductive age. Before modern healthcare child mortality was very high (globally 40% by 5th birthday in the 1800s)and giving birth was a risky business for the mothers. Also of course you have disease, conflict and natural disasters that cull populations. Sure you can play with numbers but the real world isn't as simple as that is it. Think I've read Noah and his wife didn't have more children anyway so you have 3 initial couples not 4. Plus you are assuming that pretty much the entire world population all go to Egypt. What about the other great civilizations that existed at a similar time, the Chinese dynasties or the Indus Valley for example ?

 

I was being conservative. Families then would not even be physically possible unless the bible is correct about human history because mutational load. With that in mind we have to assume something against what the bible says, and since I am arguing the bible is true then you can't just pick and choose some of the things it says and ignore the parts that don't favour your argument. For example it said God, "blessed Noah", this would mean His family too, according to the biblical way of things, they also received a command to go forth and multiply.

 

If God is buying dinner, everyone will eat, or have you forgotten the feeding of the five thousand?

 

 

 

Wibble: I don't know if you could physically fit a pair of every land creature on the Ark (I doubt it) but they sure wouldn't survive very long and the Ark would sink anyway. There's a lot of extinct animals to cater for us well, dinosaurs etc.

 

That's a standard complaint of atheists, a very popularly repeated old canard, the maths have been done and it floats. But are you really interested in the answers? If you are, here are some, given by the super-Sarfati phd extraordinaire;

 

 

The Ark measured 300 × 50 × 30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140 × 23 × 13.5 metres or 459 × 75 × 44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m³ (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50 × 50 × 30 centimetres (20 × 20 × 12 inches), that is 75,000 cm³ (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m³ (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars

http://creation.com/...it-on-noahs-ark

 

So the real complaint you have is that large amounts of cargo can't be on large boats or they sink. But if we check, "reality" as you are fond of checking, if you haven't noticed, many large boats with large loads, float. But 16,000 animals or about 3% of the space on the ark, isn't going to make it sink.

 

I don't necessarily agree there were that few animals, as it depends on what is meant by kinds. I know CMI say maybe one pair of wolf-like creatures for dogs but we have to consider now extinct animals too, and the possibility of there already being several kinds of dogs. But his figures show just how vast the ark was. Noah also had 120 years to build it. I have been building a shed for about three months, and what I find is if you have a lot of time to do something, you figure out problems as you go along, you tend to come back to problems and say to yourself; "no this won't be good here, I'll do that again,".

 

120 years to figure it all out. That's an immensely long time to sort out a problem, and he had God's favour/wisdom, because Genesis says Noah feared God. ("The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom").

 

:D Our skydaddy doesn't raise any dummies! :D



#19 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 January 2017 - 09:58 AM

 

I don't know if you could physically fit a pair of every land creature on the Ark (I doubt it) but they sure wouldn't survive very long and the Ark would sink anyway. There's a lot of extinct animals to cater for us well, dinosaurs etc.

That's a standard complaint of atheists, a very popularly repeated old canard, the maths have been done and it floats. But are you really interested in the answers? If you are, here are some, given by the super-Sarfati phd extraordinaire;

 

http://creation.com/...it-on-noahs-ark

 

So the real complaint you have is that large amounts of cargo can't be on large boats or they sink. 

Actually, I think the real complaint is that all the animals won't fit.

 

There are also a host of logistical issues such as getting the animals to the ark, loading them, feeding them after debarkation.  What happens to diseases and parasites? and on and on.....

 

Sinking is an entirely different issue and will most likely happen due to hull flexure regardless of the amount of living cargo on board.  When I was on a steel ship of similar size to the ark.  We took "green water" over the bridge and cracked the bow while barely "making way" (just enough speed so the rudder would work and we could steer the ship).

 

But if we check, "reality" as you are fond of checking, if you haven't noticed, many large boats with large loads, float. But 16,000 animals or about 3% of the space on the ark, isn't going to make it sink.

 

I don't necessarily agree there were that few animals, as it depends on what is meant by kinds. 

The last sentence hits the nail on the head..... "it depends on what is meant by kinds."  Creationists are fond of saying the term "species" isn't well defined, but it's a hellofalot better defined than "kind."  Without that definition, all estimates of how much space on the ark was required for them is little more than speculation.

 

Noah also had 120 years to build it. 

That's another problem.... weathering. The oldest commissioned navy ship in the world is the USS Constitution ("Old Ironsides").  While it spends all its time tied up to a pier in Boston, it must be turned around every year to prevent problems caused by sun damage to one side only.  Noah would have had to build a shed to cover the ark and prevent serious warping of the sun-facing side.

 

I have been building a shed for about three months, and what I find is if you have a lot of time to do something, you figure out problems as you go along, you tend to come back to problems and say to yourself; "no this won't be good here, I'll do that again,".

I know what you mean.... I spent about the same amount of time (a couple hours a day after work) building a shed for my wife's horse.  There's a lot of head scratching and figuring even when you have it all laid out on paper.



#20 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 13 January 2017 - 03:02 PM

I don't agree with only 4 children per generation or 25 years between generations.  Try the math with 8 children and 17 years. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users