Poll ~ The Flood & Noah's Ark ~ Fact or Fiction?

I see you used 2700 BC. What does this mean?

 

It means nothing other than we base the year on the supposed birth of jesus.
We have to use something to signify the year, And as the person who invented the notion of the christian calendar was a Roman emperor people had to go along with whatever he said. it doesn't, As you would like it to, Prove anything what-so-ever.

I have explained this to you many times before.

Are you going to try to derail the thread again because you don't have a response to the Gilgamesh myth?

 

This doesn't square with what I know.

The calendar we use has gone through several iterations, beginning with several iterations pre-dating Julius Caesar. It was Caesar who obviously invented the "Julian" calendar, or at least it was invented during his reign as Pontifex Maximus. This calendar includes the 365-day, 12-month year, and leap year-day. Pope Gregory introduced his adjustment to the Julian Calendar - the "Gregorian Calendar" - which sought, among other things, to correct the slight errors in matching the seasonal cycles that was endemic to the Julian Calendar. It also introduced the notion of years counted backwards and forward from the birth of Christ. There was no Christian emperor who invented a "Christian Calendar."

As to the notion of the ark and a massive flood, world cultures and religions were, and are, replete with accounts of a flood, and curious to me is that most of them share some notion of a wicked or otherwise flawed humanity, a god that decided to clean the slate, and some sort of promise of new life - quite strikingly in the form of a man and his family saved from the general destruction, to start anew (compare the Deucalion myth with Noah's Ark). Not just Gilgamesh (and others) from Babylon, but Sumeria, Asia, the South Pacific, and Europe and the Americas all had accounts. From what I have seen, there does seem to be some evidence of a massive flooding in pre-history, particularly occurring in and around the Mediterranean.

 

I'm laughing at the two people who voted that it was a "fact".

 

how about this: the earth was one single piece of land which got split into various continents over a period of time. SO probably the animals belonged to that era.

 

Without looking more closely, this was my first thought as well.

 

What i meant was that the calendar we use today originated then. The Gregorian calendar was an adaptation from the Julian calendar and what we use now was adapted from the Gregorian calendar. But the point remains, The fact that we use jesus' birthday as a basis for the number to denote the year proves nothing.

Why would it be curious that myths based on each other have similarities?

I agree that all flood myths are similar. But that surely is evidence that they are adaptations of each other. Especially if you look at the time between when supposed global floods had happened.

The flood myths may have also first been stories about actual localised flooding. but that is a long way away from what the noah story says.

myths generally have an element of truth in them.

 

Yes, this is what I wrote. But you indicated:

-And this wasn't correct. You may have meant otherwise but it's not what you wrote, so I cleared the misconception up.

Because I am fascinated by our species.

I agree with you that it is commonsense that the myths either built upon each other, or, were connected by some tenuous strand back through tribal accounts, upon actual event(s) in the dim past. The role of science would be to discover what actually happened, and many have jumped in. It's also why I wrote "not sure" about the flood, at least - despite the multiplicity of myths, I wasn't there, so I can't speak from an absolutist position.

 

It seems ironic to me that creationists are ready to site evolutionary arguements to 'prove' their creationist arguements, but when presented with a evolutionary theory for the development of mankind they rubbish it.

 

I think the story of Noah's Ark is based off a massive flood that probably did occur several thousand years ago. Many different cultures around the world have passed down stories of an epic flood, and some scientists claim that soil samples from many different areas contain mineral deposits that indicate a flood did happen in the area around the Indian Ocean. Some have speculated that an impact with a comet could have caused this, pointing to evidence of a crater about 1,000 miles east of Madagascar. In any case, it's only natural for cultures to attach their own stories of heroism to such an epic event.

Do I believe a flood more massive than anything seen in modern times happened thousands of years ago and impacted cultures around the world? Yes. Do I believe that an old man named Noah built a massive ark to hold two of every species in the world? No. By that time the land masses had separated into basically the same formation we see today, so I think it would have been hard for many animals to make it to the Middle East.

 

As an evolutionist and an atheist, I tend to agree. But then, I've seen enough zealotry among my atheist brothers (mostly - curiously, I've not seen the behavior among the atheist women I've known)- on this very board - that presenting ourselves, as a body, as "above the stench" is just a tad hypocritical, at the very least.

 

You are confusing what is called macro-evolution and adaption.

 

I don't believe so. Arguing that polar bears and penguins evolved from other animals over a few hundred years doesn't take a great leap of faith to see what could happen over thousands.

 

I think punctuational evolution goes a long way towards explaining the relative lack of "inter-species" fossils, when compared to "adaptive" changes "within" a species.

I think the other problem is as both Stox and Matt are alluding to: we look at life now, as in a photograph, fixed and static, and therefore can't conceive of the changes occurring (meaning, changes in a given population gene pool) every time new life is created. If we stretch that out to millenia, the picture grows to a dynamic film.

 

I guess I missed that argument, who was arguing that?

 

So you are saying there is truth in:

The Loch Ness Monster.
The Abominable Snowman
Santa Claus
Easter Bunny
The Kraken
The Bogeyman
The Drop Bear
Medusa
Pegasus
Unicorn (I do remember you mentioning this one frequently in other threads).

How am I meant to take you seriously when you make this kind of statement?

 

Look up the word "generally".

 

I have a good idea what "generally" means. Let's read your thoughts on it regarding your statement.

 

What are you talking about? if you have something to say, Say it. Don't just post random quotes and expect people to know what you are blabbering on about.

Generally means usually, Not all the time and not including everything. So from your post listing a bunch of myths and claiming that they don;t have a basis in reality (even though some of them do) you demonstrated that either a) you can't read or b) you don't know what generally means.

 

OK...Let's put this point to rest. You said "myths generally have an element of truth in them." Most people would read that from you and think "hmmm...is he supporting that there is an element of truth in myths?"

If you don't support it then why post that statement in that fashion? All you are doing is confusing people. Hence, is why I asked about the other myths.