INCEST

In both the adam and eve, and noah's ark story, there is a large problem, namely incest. It is not possible for a species to develope from 2 creatures. The result will be non-viable offspring.

Also, what about ducks. Ducks can swim, so they must have all survived the flood... there must be some pretty evil ducks around.

(P.S. I stole this from Eddie Izzard and made it less funny.)

there's also the possibility that the "Great Flood" only whiped out mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) which was basicly the known world to them

I think that you will find with Noah and His ark, it was more than just 2 people... it was noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives.

Genesis 7

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family......"

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark

If you take a literalist approach then you're all trying to rationalize fiction anyway. It's like debating whether Zerg, Protoss, or Terran would win in an intergalactic battle royale.

There are arguments and conterarguments for each side, but the simple fact of the matter is that it didn't nor is going to happen.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 02-09-2004).]

Just for the sake of arguement then.

quote:Originally posted by wrecked&jealous:

I think that you will find with Noah and His ark, it was more than just 2 people... it was noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives.

Genesis 7

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family......"

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark

Even then, inbreeding would occur in the next generation as all children would have the same grandparents (Noah and his missus). It takes about 50 people to start a new line. Even if Noah's sons were practicing the extreme of polygamy there's still only one y chromosome to go around.

quote:Originally posted by Exodus5000:

INCEST

It is not possible for a species to develope from 2 creatures. The result will be non-viable offspring.

I'm pretty certian that rodents and insects and some others, can and do breed and continue to do so.

Can you say "myth"?

Like alot of areas with archaeology, science and the like, i tend to avoid saying this proves it! or whatever as they have a habit of making new discoveries etc. However, this is interesting:

Archaeology and the Flood of Noah- this is 100% plagerised, and comes from a section comparing the Genesis account with various other early texts (i.e. Elba tablets etc.).

"As with the creation accounts, the flood narrative in Genesis is more realistic and less mythological than other ancient versions, indicating its authenticity. The superficial similarities point toward a historical core of events that give rise to all of these renditions.The names change: Noah is called Ziusudra by the sumerians and Utnapishtim by the Bablyonians. The basic story doesn't: A man is told to build a ship to specific dimensions because God(s) is going to flood the world. He obeys, rides out the storm, and offers sacrifice upon exiting the boat. The Deity(-ies) respons with remorse over the destruction of life, and makes a covenant with the man. Tese core events point to a historical basis.

Similar flood accounts are found all over the world. The flood story is told by Greeks, the Hindus, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Algonquins and the Hawaiians. One list of Sumerian kings treats the flood as a historical reference point. After naming eight kings who lived extraordinarily long lives (tens of thousands of years), this sentence interrupts the list: "[Then] the Flood swept over [the earth] and when kingship was lowered [again] from heaven, kingship was [first] in Kish."

There are good reasdons to believe that Genesis relates the original story. The other versions contain elaborationsm indicating corruption. Only in Genesis is the year of the flood given, as well as dates for the chronologoy relative to Noah's life. In fact, Genesis reads almost like a diary or ship's log of the events.

The cubical Babylonian ship could not have saved anyone. The raging waters would have constantly turned it on every side. However, the biblical ark is rectangular- long, wide, low- so that it would ride well in rough seas. The length of the rainfall in the pagan accounts (seven days) is not enough time for the devestation they describe. The waters would have to rise at least above most mountains, to a height of over seventeen thousand feet, and it is more resonable to assume a longer rainfall to do this. The Babylonian idea that all of the flood waters subsided in one day is absurd. Another striking difference between Genesis and the other versions is that in these accounts the hero is granted immortality and exalted. The Bible moves on to describe Noah's sin. Only a version that seeks to tell the truth would include such a realistic admission.

Some have suggested that this was a localized flood. However there is geological evidence to support a worldwide flood. Partial skeletons of recent animals are found in deep fissures in several parts of the world, and the flood seems to be the best explanation for these. This would explain how these fissures occur even in hills of considerable height, which extend from 140 ft to 300ft. Since no skeleton is complete, it is safe to conclude that none of these animals (mammoths, bears, wolves, oxen, hyenas, rhinoceri, aurochs, deer and smaller mammals) fell into these fissures alive, nor were they rolled there by streams. Yet the calcite cementing these diverse bones together indicates that they must have been deposited under water. Such fissures have been discovered in various places around the world. This evidence shows what a breif but violent episode of this sort would be expected to cause within the short span of one year."

-N.L Geisler, Baker Encylopedia of Christian Apologetics

cited in the "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" J.McDowell. Top resource, i strongly recommened it.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

"As with the creation accounts, the flood narrative in Genesis is more realistic and less mythological than other ancient versions, indicating its authenticity.

So if I take something by Tolkein and remove all references to magic and fantastical creatures, the fact that it is "more realistic and less mythological" than the original will indicate its authenticity?

quote:The waters would have to rise at least above most mountains, to a height of over seventeen thousand feet

This despite the fact that there is no geological evidence for a flood of these proportions, Creationist distortions aside.

Of corse there are flood stroies in different cultures, people probably noticed that it sometimes rained, sometimes lasting a minute, sometimes lasting a day, sometimes heavy, sometimes light. So some great thinkers got together and said "what would happen if it rained really heavy for a really long time', hence the flood stories. This was back when they didnt know that there was only so much water and the flooding of earth was impossible, and when they didnt know that the animals in their area were vastly different from animals far away that would also drown, they didnt know all the thing we know now that make something like the story of noahs arc generally believed amongst many people to be pure fiction.

Like i said, its interesting. I wasn't expounding it as proof-

I also came across a creationist/theistic evolution froum the other day, where a guy mentioned that the consensus among 18th century christian geologists was that there was no evidence in the geological records- their findings coming before, and being published around the same time as Darwin's work- to support a planet wide flood.

Will post more details if anyone is interested (i seem to say that a lot...!)

according to my baptist (christian) friends, god was cool with incest until the world was populated then he declared it sin.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

If you take a literalist approach then you're all trying to rationalize fiction anyway. It's like debating whether Zerg, Protoss, or Terran would win in an intergalactic battle royale.

There are arguments and conterarguments for each side, but the simple fact of the matter is that it didn't nor is going to happen.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 02-09-2004).]

YArr! Quit ridiculing my religion you ass! The Templar would so ride the wave to victory against the heathen Terrans and Zerg. Un taro Adun!