Moral Codes before the 10 commandments?

[basics]

conon394,

It is not impolite to say that the Bible is my source in me coming to know God and so to reply with, " It is written..." is not for me to prove rather for the unbeliever to disprove. As for the Ten Commandments, at no time have I ever implied that they justify slavery, nor do I say it now because if one followed the Commandments there wouldn't be any slavery in any shape or form.

Now the question on how you live your life will not be Judged by you, rather the Creator Himself and that built on your attitude towards Him. In other words, if you are not born again of the Spirit of God, He will send you to hell. That is everlasting Light shining down on you like a lake of fire with no respite ever. He is that Light always there to remind you of your folly.

As for the observable world it is quite clear that we never got here by chance. The Bible tells us how we got here and Whom it was that did so. Indeed it goes into many details which are still viewable today. So, please tell me what these observable things are?

[conon394]

conon394,

It is not impolite to say that the Bible is my source in me coming to know God and so to reply with, " It is written..." is not for me to prove rather for the unbeliever to disprove. As for the Ten Commandments, at no time have I ever implied that they justify slavery, nor do I say it now because if one followed the Commandments there wouldn't be any slavery in any shape or form.

Now the question on how you live your life will not be Judged by you, rather the Creator Himself and that built on your attitude towards Him. In other words, if you are not born again of the Spirit of God, He will send you to hell. That is everlasting Light shining down on you like a lake of fire with no respite ever. He is that Light always there to remind you of your folly.

As for the observable world it is quite clear that we never got here by chance. The Bible tells us how we got here and Whom it was that did so. Indeed it goes into many details which are still viewable today. So, please tell me what these observable things are?

I said you were impolite for not sourcing texts and or references not because of your expressed beliefs

Now the question on how you live your life will not be Judged by you, rather the Creator Himself and that built on your attitude towards Him. In other words, if you are not born again of the Spirit of God, He will send you to hell. That is everlasting Light shining down on you like a lake of fire with no respite ever. He is that Light always there to remind you of your folly.

Yes I am aware of your particular version of Christianity and it remains a version and than subset of other religions. Again I find it unpersuasive. Adding an appeal to fear does not make it more so.

As for the Ten Commandments, at no time have I ever implied that they justify slavery, nor do I say it now because if one followed the Commandments there wouldn't be any slavery in any shape or form.

You don't have to the commandments themselves defend slavery and approve of it. There is nothing in them to support your conclusion.

As for the observable world it is quite clear that we never got here by chance. The Bible tells us how we got here and Whom it was that did so. Indeed it goes into many details which are still viewable today. So, please tell me what these observable things are?

Assuming your biblical literary true belief

I have a couple time already there is no general genetic bottle neck in humans and terrestrial animals at ~4000 years ago and no radical one in humans ~2000 before that. Ice cores are radically older than 6000 years. Human origins positioned in the wrong place. You have just ignored me several times now. Umm what else if I toss in things the fact there is no way the arc could hold all terrestrial creatures. Seems sufficient for now we have covered other things in the past and I willing to bet the result will be no different.

[basics]

conon394,

And why couldn't the Ark hold all living things that were to be saved? As for the bottlenecks you talk of please explain why there should be any? How do you know that ice cores are radically older than 6,000 years?

[conon394]

And why couldn't the Ark hold all living things that were to be saved?

Really? 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high is simply insufficient to hold existing species and the food they would need and fresh water [Aside from being a fantasy construct that made of would is too large and loaded to max would simply sink]. The biomass involved is so fantastic and impossible. The logistics impossible unless you add god magic not noted in the story at every turn. And by the time you are done you added so much it is rather more sensical to say it is an allegorical part of the creation mythology and is not real in a literal sense and its kinda just a retelling of one the floating on clay tablets from older civilizations.

How do you know that ice cores are radically older than 6,000 years?

Here a geologist can explain it better than I could.

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gl...e-core-basics/

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/qu...udon%20et%20al.

Notice the multiple redundant but independant dating methods?

As for the bottlenecks you talk of please explain why there should be any?

Because according to the story you have reduced the population of everything on the earth to two (well and Noah's family a few, really one more and ones (animals) by sevens - less the ones recklessly sacrificed.). You are essentially wipe out the genetic diversity of the overall population

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Thus Africans have the most diverse genetics of all humans. Since the migratory populations that moved out of africa carried only a subset of that diversity with them (*). A bottle neck is obviously more serious and clear and it is detectable for example in Cheetahs

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC46261/

Compared to the observable most recent bottle neck in the Cheetahs your story posits a radical bottle neck across everything on the ship including humans and only 4000 years for any new genetic diversity to develop. No such generalized bottle necks exists and the human genome would be stunningly homogenous and its not. Essentially every and any species we look could including ourselves would have a more homogenous genome than even the cheetahs do now. And related of course we have fish comparatively expansive and varied genome (although not sure how they survive the violence of the flood as depicted because it vastly disrupt all the micro environments fish and other aquatic creatures depend on let alone the big salt fresh water issue (or are they on the arc as well).

* For Africa.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna30502963

[basics]

conon394,

Ken Ham has I believe built a copy of the Ark which shows just how true the story is. It was the size of a container vessel by today's standards and could easily have quartered young animals yet of reproducing age. So, as Ham's craft shows there was plenty of room on board for passengers and provisions.

[conon394]

conon394,

Ken Ham has I believe built a copy of the Ark which shows just how true the story is. It was the size of a container vessel by today's standards and could easily have quartered young animals yet of reproducing age. So, as Ham's craft shows there was plenty of room on board for passengers and provisions.

Oh that's funny. No that does not work. Tell me has he loaded and floated it anywhere in order to watch it sink? So you are going to respond to only one point I mentioned? in any case building a stationary replica does not in any way prove the story. Or rather yes you can male a boat shaped object out of wood with supports to the dimensions of the arc in the Bible - that was I think never really a question that needed solving. I'm curious did he build with just 4 people?

It was the size of a container vessel by today's standards

Those are not made of wood and would sink like a stone or break in half it you tried to make them out of wood. Consider the SS Wyoming the largest wooden ship ever built

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)

She needed pumps to get out the water from her timber flexing (hogging and sagging) and was internally reinforced with steel and iron strapping.

In any case the ark reconstruct is simply a tourist trap. Facts are facts a wooden ship that big will not work. Again to reiterate there is reason Caligula's 'Nemi ships' floated about on a lake. Even an insane man would not try to take something like that out in the open sea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemi_ships

Young animals thats all you got - that is a thin reed that will not save your story. So at this point how many animals do you imagine we are talking even if immature. How immature if they are mammals they must no longer be nursing so not that small. Food and water have you considered that. And who shoveling all the crap and urine out of the boat for what almost a year. Remember also theoretically all the biomass of all insects and various even smaller living things needs to be included. Also 7.21 is a problem since in implies all things of water died... so did Noah have aquariums as well? So come up with a number of animals even young.

Also take it you never you have no experience in transporting a large animal nor maintaining animals in captivity in an enclosed space? Also where did Noah get a fresh supply of the very constrained types of Eucalyptus for the Greater glider to eat for a year? Seems like a long walk to a place no ancient Hebrew had ever encountered. And than well he need a botanical garden on the ark too. But there is no sunlight to grow things so well add your magic at this point. Maybe god gave him grow lights that ran on methane in a redacted passage. Or the animals all ate manna but that not in the text.

But really just admit you are defending a silly story that is imposable and one that just makes god look incredibly cruel and capricious.

I mean honestly we start with Genesis 6:1-8. A garbled I assume hash of multiple traditions that really needed a copy editor or at least a crap ton less compression because we get story whip lash.

Let see

6:1-3 God seems happy

6:4 Apparently angels are horney.

6:5-8 Oh wait now all humanity is evil but Noah. Why does it regret making the animals are they evil to? Apparently but than he saves them. Why wait why didn't an all knowing god just start over when Adam and Eve screwed up.

Nothing about animals but apparently the other wise innocent have to die because god is erratic, cruel or strangely ambivalent or has a temper that would a bad Irish drunk blush. Oh how about those infants who have not had to choose wickedness. No omens, messengers, profits - nope just kill everything.

If regrets making why not start over for real I mean he is god not wipe the slate clean and make new stuff...



In any case there is no generalized genetic bottleneck at 4000 years BP. Ergo make believe story remains make believe

Also still addressing the moral problem of god not ending slavery in his commandants when nothing was stopping him/she/it. I need to mention this so we are not totally OT.

[basics]

conon394,

First off, the Ark was not made for sailing rather as a housing to protect all inside and so the finishing act was to cover inside and out with pitch to make it watertight. Did the eight build it on their own? Who knows but they certainly had plenty of time to do so. All that was required of it was that it stay afloat for 150 days after which the waters subsided and Noah was 601 years old. Researchers from the University of Leicester came to the conclusion that Noah's Ark would have floated and also held the animals into the bargain. Their paper was published.

As far as the quality of the animals themselves remember it is written that God brought them to the boat not Noah so what age and size they were was what God calculated to be right to repopulate the animal kingdom.

The Ten Commandments do not condone slavery nor do they even mention it. Any Jew who was involved with slavery therefore was breaking God's Law.

[conon394]

The ten commandments cleary mention slavery and thus condone slavery.God could have outlawed the practice but does not. So he is OK with it.

"Any Jew who was involved with slavery therefore was breaking God's Law."

Err no they are not how could be it is clear and approved in the Ten commandments and in Leviticus.

Your really need to face up to the fact your god is not so nice.

As far as the quality of the animals themselves remember it is written that God brought them to the boat not Noah so what age and size they were was what God calculated to be right to repopulate the animal kingdom.

So god magic paste. Fact remains there is no glaringly obvious genetic bottle neck ~4000 years ago in animals or humans etc. You keep ignoring that issue. I imagine this will be you argument for anything missing or obviously fantastical in the story - god magic. Sure I can't refute that but than neither can you refute god magic in anyone else's mythology.

First off, the Ark was not made for sailing rather as a housing to protect all inside and so the finishing act was to cover inside and out with pitch to make it watertight.

That is immaterial. Wheatear it started out water tight or not. It would break. Under the smallest stress or loading

Did the eight build it on their own? Who knows but they certainly had plenty of time to do so

What makes you say that?. Also the longer they take the longer they have repair what they have already built.

All that was required of it was that it stay afloat for 150 days after which the waters subsided and Noah was 601 years old

That is actually quite a task

Researchers from the University of Leicester came to the conclusion that Noah's Ark would have floated and also held the animals into the bargain. Their paper was published.

Typical a reference but no link or proper form. Your have of course read the paper - yes?

https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index...load/2169/2073

Well now that you have I am sure you can see the problems. Its at best an amusing thought experiment at worst a story the young earth creations can tuck away in an argument to look they are not desperately trying to defend an fantasy story.

Lets see where to start.

First as the paper authors admit they are doing a simple calculation on bouncy of a wooden box with the dimensions given (this is important to note). They pack in a first guessing at that point because they admit they can't know the cubit used so are guessing and averaging . A minor point but a point none the less.

Also a small point but worth noting they have to guess what gopher wood is so their model again becomes an approximation.

Wait now we get to real problems The game they propose is to simply use the Archimedes principle to ascertain the theoretical buoyancy of the ark. Critically here they are imaging for their calculation an empty box. Not a working ship and not even the three decks in the Bible. Not even Ken Ham is so silly see his reconstruction (1). So lets be clear we are playing a math game not a ship design game. But yes they arrive at a weight number 50.54x10^6kg that their empty wooden box could float.

As I said they make no effort to account for internal structures. They make no attempt address if the construction would structurally sound (it is not in either Ham's version or the empty box presented by the authors). For comparison see Church's discussion of why the traditional size given for Zheng He's treasure ships is fantasy (2)

But next of course the wheels come off.

"As such, assuming the average mass of a sheep is 23.47kg [9]; our calculations prove that buoyancy force of the ark could support the weight of 2.15 million sheep."

Page 2: O. Youle et al. Linked above

Ahh right. I dunno where to start. But this calculation is all kinds of pure stupid. Sure they make an average weight for sheep (that is utter rot see below) and than say the empty box can hold 2.15 million of there mass unit 23.47 kg. I suppose it is true in that you could dump that many rocks in the empty box posited and theoretically its buoyancy would hold all those inert units. Do it with sheep and off course a few at the top might live for a few days while the rest are crushed and to suffocate - that is or drown when the box breaks.

Also its not sheep they are talking about but weened lambs. They offer no particular evidence to use the is as valid average unit size. But at this point can't help but see this has stopped being a simply a logic came and playing with a simplified model for physics but has started to become what for all practical purposes is young earth apologetics.

You see the 2.15 million is a set up. Because about this point your realize almost all the sources cited in the paper are Christian science sources, more particularly young earth creationist sources... It a very large number So in their conclusion page they can play a game

They cite a source for 1.5 million animal species know to date. Nominaly by the referencing the World Book Encyclopedia. But the notes say rather they are citing

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/Bib...nyAnimals.aspx.

A now apparently defunct webpage of the Cristian broadcasting Network. Is academic dishonesty or hiding something at poor practice either properly cite the World Book Encyclopedia properly or don't

For comparison

https://education.nationalgeographic.../biodiversity/

Up to 8.7 million potential species with the 1.2 Known - not counting extinct species.

But you see the problem I hope. Either number 1.2 or 1.5. waving away Noah's family and the space they need and the animals by 7s you still have 2.2-3 million species pairs simply dropped into an empty box. And a completely unfounded assumption that they average out to a weened lamb which of course comes from a young earth creationist source (H. Morris, J. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood).

Aside At this let's make clear the paper at this point has waved away and ignored the weight and existence of any internal structures in the arc and the weight of water and food for the animals. On that last point let us revisit the weened lamb unit of measure shall we. A weened horse is going to be 165-250 Kg so 7 -10 of the WLWU (Weened Lamb Weight Unit) but you know what its gotta eat. So let's be generous and assume the light weight at 165 kg

[Note here so seven months and 17 days to rest on mt Ararat. Than 10 months and still sitting about. Than 40 more days till Noah sends out birds. Than a couple weeks of bird recon. And finally I don't if those add up by 8:13 says a year total so I rolling with that]

OK back to the horses. So remember that one horse at 7 WLWUs. Now she needs for 365 days around 18,000 kgs of hay for food (you can't use adult food to pounds ratios since these animals are growing). That is ~767 WLWUs. Of course that means the pair of them so over all that 1534 WLWUs of which only 0.45% is the horses. Same calculation for a weened average house cat and feeding days comes to them less than 6.0% of their food weight (less than because I can't find good data on how much a kitten needs to grow vs adult sedentary house cat numbers realistical the cat number is likely 1-2%) . Ruminants do a little better than horses because their more efficiently process the hay you be feeding them but the point remains once you toss in feeding the model is beyond silly.

Mind you the fresh water calculation is worse but I'm not going to bother I think the point is clear. And anyway you will argue that they just need to bucket up water from the brackish stew they were floating on and god will make it clean. But if we add water the arc is easily untenable. Or possibly god made everything hibernate or any other made intervention you need to keep the fantay going.

But the authors true views come out in their conclusions since the source only creationist works and jump to only 2000 - 35000 animals are needed to be in the arc. Based on what god magic that's what. They only need an increasingly small amount of kinds at every turn when confronted with facts and amazingly and completely contrary to the evidence they kinds blossom out to everything we see today in ways are well just magic. I'm be being harsh but they do seem have parlayed the permissiveness of the program to give creation science a veneer of legitimacy.

Also of course

Researchers from the University of Leicester

Not researchers undergrads publishing in an ungrad university outlet judged by their fellow undergrads (that is it encourages playfulness in their own words not practicality and certainly not what you mean when say published in general in reference to science). In this case clearly by only fellow physics students and certainly not any senior engineering students in naval/marine engineering in the UK (of which Leicester seems not to any particular noted program in)

https://le.ac.uk/physics/study/under...topics-journal

You might consider some other entries

The Dark Knight Rises - trajectory of afalling batman
The Physics of Star Wars
Science of superheroes
Santa's relativistic journey
The draining of a lifetime - how longwould it take a vampire to drain a human's blood?
Could Bruce Willis save the world?
Fantastic Post and How to Deliver it -can an owl deliver post?

I am sure the Santa one proves Santa right?

Also see here students surprised the media takes the training journal seriously

https://le.ac.uk/physics/study/under...he-dark-knight

“A large number of peopleassumed we were full academic researchers”
“Few reporters picked up on the factthe Journal of Special Topics is a training exercise,”

Its school project aimed at learning the ins and outs of publishing papers. Problem the only thing that the other students judge on is the core physics. And the fun/odd factor. Her I betting as long as they cog the buoyancy of the empty box correct they were fine no mean marine engineers rolled in to rain on their parade that was not the point.

150 days after which the waters subsided and Noah was 601 years old

It had to float for 150 days then they were stuck in for a year. You sure you read the bible.





1
https://assets.arkencounter.com/img/...ftmansship.jpg

2
Church, Sally K. “ZHENG HE: ANINVESTIGATION INTO THE PLAUSIBILITY OF 450-FT TREASURE SHIPS.”Monumenta Serica 53 (2005): 1–43.http://www.jstor.org/stable/40727457.

Which I think is as still free at reserch gate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...TREASURE_SHIPS

[basics]

conon394,

Good try but quite wrong, why? Simply because I'll take the Word of God anyday over yours. I am not a scientist yet I have seen things that even science cannot explain and that after God changed my life so I make no apologies for having complete faith in knowing that the Ark story is quite true. That you don't agree will not change my mind nor do all your assumptions above. I mean if God could create all things that we know of what makes you think He couldn't get made a suitable vessel with which to save a certain amount of creatures plus eight humans from death?

[conon394]

I mean if God could create all things that we know of what makes you think He couldn't get made a suitable vessel with which to save a certain amount of creatures plus eight humans from death?

That answer generally works for any faith or mythology you choose to believe in. Theoretically had you not spent you whole life basically with calvinist christianity and instead been a ex pat raised in Thailand you now might be an ernest Buddhist having had a life changing event and visons of the Buddha. Why do you ask people for answers if you simply turn to its written, gods will and well god fix anything anyway and hen assert since you (other person) don't believe the way I do your view is pointless.

You continue to ignore god's failure to ban slavery when he had an opportunity. That at least is written so it must disturb you. And the demonstration of god's cruel and capricious nature revealed at Jericho or the failure of Isaiah's prophesy about Egypt?

Also if you don't what to actually discuss facts rationally why raise the student paper? Is kind of annoying to make a good faith (ha) effort to show it proves nothing and than have you say god magic. Also interesting what are your thoughts on Genesis 6:4 are you troubled for having sex with a randy angels/and or giants but apparently at least sons of god and not human.

I'll take the Word of God anyday over yours

Well only part of it since you seem happy with a very redacted Bible.

[basics]

conon394,

Whatever happened way back then was part and parcel of God's story about Him first and us second and the Bible brings it all together how we might learn from it and find His Saving Grace in Jesus Christ our Lord. For you anyone who supports God's Word has to be met with derision just as there were many who did the same thing way back then which only proves there is nothing new on this earth.

Where does it say that God approves of slavery? And, what was it that Isaiah got wrong? The students did their research and found that the Ark could well have floated without sinking whilst carrying all its passengers but since you are a master boatbuilder you know better and that without even being there. The problem you have with Gen 6:4 is that you are reading the dead letter of Scripture and therefore are jumping to conclusions that are most likely wrong. Yes, there were giants in those days as the story of David and Goliath confirm as well as the Roman Legions when they first met German warriors.

You talk of a very redacted Bible but I tell you that it was a version of the KJV that mysteriously appeared inside my pile of Napoleonic books and it was that Book on opening that began my journey where God would change my life. So, please don't even attempt to disparage what is perfectly true. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Salvation and I am but one of many who can vouch for it.

[conon394]

Where does it say that God approves of slavery?

Been over this already. Simple and for starters. Exodus 20:17. God could have eliminated slavery in his basic laws but confirmed it thus he approved of it. Recollect you believe this was dictated to Moses by god.

And, what was it that Isaiah got wrong?

Isaiah 19 is pretty much a flop as prophecy

The students did their research and found that the Ark could well have floated without sinking

No they did not.

They did a thought experiment about the buoyancy of a empty wooden cyprus box. Created as I noted essentially for no particular reason a theoretical WLWU of 23.47 Kg. They assert that the computed bouncy could hold 2.15 million WLWUs. As I noted above they are erroneous in calling it a sheep since it is in fact just weaned lamb (on the smaller side) that they have in mind or rather their poorly sourced reference does.

They make no attempt to explore the viability or soundness of their box as a structure. It is fantastically larger than any functioning wooden ship even those braced with iron and steel and having access to steam run pumps. I never claimed to be a master ship builder. Thus I did provide a link with a detailed discussion on practical limits of an wooden ship. And an example in SS Wyoming (you might notice it foundered and sunk). You cannot cite the physics of Archimedes as in ah ha it floats and than ignore the same physics that tell you a wooden box with no internal supports that big would break in half if loaded. That is logically inconsistent.

They ignore the weight and volume of internal structures. As noted (and linked) even Ken Ham is not so foolish in his reconstruction. Thus 2.15 million WLWUs is now reduced by that. Even the Bible assumes 3 decks... But also of course you can't just put 2.15 million WLWUs in empty box they all die one way or another shorty or immediately. So the 2.15 million WLWU is a farce to begin with.

Next of course the problem is food and water. I did some work for cats and horses above but let's do lambs just to be consistent with the WLWU.

The WLWU is of course and assumed weened lamb of 23.47 Kg. Technically it is a clean animal but as a WLWU its a stand in for everything else on average so I will ignore the by seven thing and just work with a pair.

So for 365 days you need 59 WLWU units of food for one Lamb WLWU (1). Or a pair of lamb WLWUs require accounting for an endowment 118 WLWU amount of food on day one. In other words just compared to their food the 2 Lamb WLWUs put them at 1.6 % percent of their weight needed (just with food). That's not as bad as the horse with clearly take way more WLWUs but way lower than economy of a small cat at 6%. But never mind let move along and assume for nor reason the weened lamb is an average. That immediately means in fact your empty box only has room for around 35,833 of individual WLWUs and their their food. Hmm that seems to be a problem. Ignoring the 7s and humans we got 17,916 pairs tops.

Got to drink too you know. Now let's we allow that somehow we missed a system for catching rain and collecting it and what not (but that is more internal structure). So that what what 150 days out 360 that arc only needs to carry the daily water for one WLWU. That translates into a day one load addition every day of around 2.5 gallons of water for the WLWU. The recommended range is .5 - 5 gallons (2). But seeing as the WLWU is eating dried or preserved food the water requirement can't be at the low end picking in the middle is likely being generous. So there 9.4 Kg of weight you need every day for a WLWU err that ~40% of the weight of one. Err that's not good. So if your not rationing that's now just 10,750 pairs WLWUs.

And this assumes somehow the Arc has real time removal of crap and urine immediately.

In any case that 10,750 WLWUs are still being dropped into a box with this time food and water. So the number is still is also minus all internal structures. I have no ideal what that would be at hand. But clearly I think its generous to imaging anything more than 5000 or so WLWUs left.

Also at this point the rains stop at 150 days we a second problem now you got to store water for the rest of the sealed year. That amount needed stored water is going to difficult since you will have to start it before the rains stopped and you ran aground. But that means the Arc had to take on 215 days of water. That's 27,875,653 WLUWs weight before the Arc stops floating that umm breaks and exceeds its bouncy.

Another dynamic problem the WLWU is a growing creature and not a stable unit. Your WLWU will be some 70 kg at just 150 days. So just at this point assuming about prefect waste removal. Sure at 150 day about 40% percent of the food weight of WLWUs are gone but the animals are all very much well over twice a heavy and the water needed to stored easily surpasses the lower food weight.

The boat it too big the kids at undergrad proved nothing but the bouncy of an empty box. It was never big enough to hold all species and you are left with decades old contortions of so called creation scientists with their kinds and ignoring the plain text of the bible they supposedly believe in to ignore the clear statement that if not on the Arc it died so out side sea creature everything has to be accounted for. And at this point we have not even discussed what tiny percentage of biomass the animals known to iron age hebrews are that would need need to be on the Arc and survive (and seeds, fungus etc).

For the inspired word of god (or is it dictated) Noah takes a fairly dull collection of actually described animals and just vague assertions of all or clean or unclean. Be a lot more persuasive if he reaseated an albatross or the bible described a marsupial coming on board. You know something an iron age yokal fiddling with a Sumerian flood myth could not have known about.

And to reiterate there is no genetic bottle neck in the data at 4000 years ago.

The problem you have with Gen 6:4 is that you are reading the dead letter of Scripture and therefore are jumping to conclusions that are most likely wrong. Yes, there were giants in those days as the story of David and Goliath confirm as well as the Roman Legions when they first met German warriors.

The Germans are the sons of god now - interesting. I don't think the giant translation is apt and a version angels fits as well.




1.
https://extension.usu.edu/cache/file...rket_Lambs.pdf

2.
http://www.sheep101.info/201/feedwat...l%20conditions.

[basics]

conon394,

I have to say that what you have worked out is impressive, the only flaw being that you are but a mere man whereas God Who made all things by the very word of His mouth not so many years before was the One Who saw to it that this craft would not only survive the deluge but all those inside as well. This God Who could walk on water, yes the same God Who put Adam into a sleep whilst He operated on him to remove a rib bone to make a woman, this God Who could part the Red Sea would obviously have no problem with the Ark as you appear to do. So you against God is what the reader has to decide upon. I have seen some of God's work in myself as well as in others and so I know from firsthand experience Who is correct and who is not. What an asset you might be if only you knew Him.

[conon394]

conon394,

I have to say that what you have worked out is impressive, the only flaw being that you are but a mere man whereas God Who made all things by the very word of His mouth not so many years before was the One Who saw to it that this craft would not only survive the deluge but all those inside as well. This God Who could walk on water, yes the same God Who put Adam into a sleep whilst He operated on him to remove a rib bone to make a woman, this God Who could part the Red Sea would obviously have no problem with the Ark as you appear to do. So you against God is what the reader has to decide upon. I have seen some of God's work in myself as well as in others and so I know from firsthand experience Who is correct and who is not. What an asset you might be if only you knew Him.

Well there is rub now is it not. You invested in this particular religion with your faith - you choose to believe and thus have no issues that bother you. But than from my perspective is no different than the earnest belief of other believers in other faiths or variants of christianity. Thus I know ernest Catholics who believe in Purgatory for example and I well believe their honest belief - but you would reject that of course. In any case thus I am left to disagree with what you typed. Nothing much in the creation myth matches empirical evidence. No young earth creation, flood, no evidence of mass migration from egypt and wandering about in the sinni, stories about Jesus written by others, a man who makes no impact (in his lifetime) on the historical record even with many supposed profound generally noncable miracles attributed to him - until Paul decides to found a new religion. Thus I am left to look at the Bible as a historical text but not a convincing invitation to a religion.

What an asset you might be if only you knew Him

But as you would have it, it is not my choice its already decided one way or the other.

In any case you did not addressing the lack of any observable genetic bottle necks and slavery being god approved.

[basics]

conon394,

Where did genes come from? The answer is quite simple in that when God made all things to their kind He incorporated a code designed for each kind to act within its kind to produce the wonderful varieties we see today. As for slavery it is obvious that God on handing the world over to sin and the power of Satan that slavery would be part of man's fall, but, He does not approve of it, so where is it approved in the Ten Commandments?

Now as far as Paul was concerned you kind of remind me of him for here was a man who hated Christians thus also hating their God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit by going that extra mile to destroy them and their belief. That is of course until one day God took him by the scruff of the neck and put him on the ground quite helpless to hear Jesus Christ speaking directly at him. From that moment on his life completely changed as it does to all them on whom God pours out His Spirit to reveal Jesus Christ in them by rebirth. Paul didn't invent any religion, rather became part of the Faith that believes Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. In carrying the Gospel to the Gentile nations he was only doing what Jesus Christ commanded the other disciples to do, the same thing expected of any Christian born again of the Spirit of God. Blessed are the feet of them that bring Good News but it is God Who does the saving.

[conon394]

Where did genes come from? The answer is quite simple in that when God made all things to their kind He incorporated a code designed for each kind to act within its kind to produce the wonderful varieties we see today

That does not answer the question or address the observable facts. There would still an observable bottle neck in everything that was a descendent of everything on the Arc there is not. Its a nice story, but that says nothing to actual facts of genetics as a science.

As for slavery it is obvious that God on handing the world over to sin and the power of Satan that slavery would be part of man's fall

Well see now that is your Augustine Manicheism speaking again. That is not self evident in the OT w/o forced or particular interpretations. If it is true why bother with the 10 commandments and additional laws?

but, He does not approve of it, so where is it approved in the Ten Commandments?

By its inclusion in the 10 commandments at first - Exodus 20:17 - and then in various other parts of the subsequent laws.

Now as far as Paul was concerned you kind of remind me of him for here was a man who hated Christians thus also hating their God

But I umm err I don't hate christians. And I certainly don't persecute them. I would suggest if you want a bible reference I rather fall into the group of Athenians who listened to Paul. Then found his new mystery religion unpersuasive and let him go on his way quite unharmed while letting him have his say and make a couple of converts (Acts 17:16 ff). Of course Acts has to inject a lie while there were multiple shrines in Athens to unknown Gods but there was however no single one to a singular unknown god. Easy to slip a little something made up when almost nobody can fact check you. But Acts plays easy with the facts and this hardly a big one. Not even a backhanded compliment for Athens at its best.

Who does the saving

Err thanks for getting to that in an incredibly abstruse way after irrationally needlessly (in your view) punishing everything.

[basics]

conon394,

When the deluge came everything that died, so died their genes but not so those in the Ark because by their reproducing the genetic code carried on. Now by bottleneck I assume you mean the eight human survivors and itis in that you have difficulty but why? For a start we don't know how many of the women on board became pregnant but didn't deliver their babies until dry land was attained nor do we know how many female offspring there were. Obviously the women then were just as fertile, perhaps more so, than today's versions. Anyway it didn't take long for them to spread across the land and that being accellerated when God broke up their language into various dialects. As the sexual drive in men is perhaps one of his first priorities the birth rate must have been high meaning it wouldn't take long for the world to start to worry about overpopulation as it has done in my lifetime.

When the Ten Commandments were given to the Jews they were to act to stop them sinning. " Keep My Commandments and live...." In other words death shall have no power over you, but alas none but the Lord Jesus Christ could ever keep them and so He Himself had to pay the price for sin as no other could pay it. So, when a person is born again of the Spirit of God whether Jew or Gentile, the blood of Jesus Christ nailed the Commandments to the cross so that they could never condemn those washed in His blood ever again. That is the message of the Gospel.

How do you know that the Greeks in Athens had no memorial to an unknown god? What is strange about you is that you'll quote writers and believe them yet you will not believe anyone whose name is associated to the Bible, you know guys like Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, why is that?

[conon394]

Time is a bit short and reply keeps getting longer I think you will have to wait a bit for a reply.

[basics]

conon394,

Time for me my friend is more than a little bit short but no doubt you'll get there.

[conon394]

How do you know that the Greek sin Athens had to memorial to an unknown god? What is strange about you is that you'll quote writers and believe them yet you will not believe anyone whose name is associated to the Bible, you know guys like Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, why is that?

You got a couple different questions there.

As per usual 'Mathew, Mark, Luke and John' are late labels applied to formalized orthodoxy.The works themselves are internally anonymous and the names were quite unknown to Paul and the authors of I Clement. And even when known to say Papias he seems to quoting a Matthew with significant differences than the canonical Matthew of the now (its really too bad we don't have his Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord - five books.).

Second its not that I disbelieve the books of the NT out of hand but I vest them with no a priori assumption they are the true inspired word of the only true god and thus somehow more trustworthy and another text not so granted that assumption. The same faith could lead a person to invest the unquestioning trust in the Koran and thus be a faithful Muslim.

That leads to three the fact they are the end product and edited selection of a much larger body of work to achieve orthodoxy in a religion is a problem. They are if you will evangelizing texts for a version of Christianity, Not written as informative works by people who did have an agenda.

"How do you know that the Greeks in Athens had to memorial to an unknown god?"

Preponderance of available evidence. Unnamed shrines and various shrines to unnamed or unknown plural deities andhero's and related are know and attested by both via archaeology and many sources for the Greeks not a one to an unknown singular god.More importantly the dramatic place for the reference is Paul on the there Areopagos hill apparently addressing the Philosophers who wanted to talk and the Areopagos council.

Aside: Here I am sure the Areopagos hill and Areopagos council mean nothing to you. But in Athens the Hill was where the Aeropagos council met. What is that? well back in the 6th century BC it was probably the most important political body in Athens as it was at the time a typical Greek oligarchy of the Archaic era. The Democracy striped it ofalmost all its powers but its oldest and most sacred one - a court for intentional murder (and occasionally some others but it was a subordinate body) However in Paul's day the Democracy was long dead and Athens was essential a sleepy Roman college town and tourist destination. And an Oligarchy once more the Areopagos council would seem to have recovered its wide ranging powers as you might expect (with no democracy paying for time government reverted back to the just the elite who could afford the time off). But the key thing is that as a court for murder that was a deeply sacred thing intention murder being unclean so it did have various shines and and alters on it.


But that was very much a specific set of unnamed deities related to the afterlife and and justice and vengeance and merciful justice. This is clearly recorded in Pausanias a man writing a tourist guide and geography narrative. Not a Christian and thus has dog in the fight. In fact a singular unknown would be exactly the kind of thing he would note and write about.Since it would be surprising. Instead its clear the shrines were to the Erinyes/Eumenides and the Semnai Theai. All worshiped in silence and none of whom would have been named in their cult setting on the Hill. Even Jerome (that would be St Jerome ) in his commentary on the letter to Titus notes the the reference is a rhetorical flourish and lie. Similarly all the references in classical drama and comedy and legal documents written by Athenians make it clear the shines on the Areopagos Hill were to Erinyes/Eumenides and the Semnai Theai. All plural and all there for the distinct relation to murder and penalty(which of course was often death).

So against that I have a Christian text with an agenda. And one I already now is willing to contradict Paul's own letters in an effort to harmonize his teaching with the elders in Jerusalem on matters of Jewish law – which is you know lying. Soon balance that is why I do not trust the assertion in Acts.

When the Ten Commandments were given to the Jews they were to act to stop them sinning. "Keep My Commandments and live...." In other words death shal lhave no power over you, but alas none but the Lord Jesus Christ could ever keep them and so He Himself had to pay the price for sin as no other could pay it. So, when a person is born again of the Spirit of God whether Jew or Gentile, the blood of Jesus Christ nailed the Commandments to the cross so that they could never condemn those washed in His blood ever again. That is the message of the Gospel.

That is certainly the message of New Testamentas you understand it the Old one by itself not so much.

"In other words death shall have no power over you" In other words is doing a lot heavy lifting there where exactly do find that in Exodus? Because the somewhat awkward (as not being true) statement inGenesis would seem contradict your interpretation. "“My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” (6:3). Which of is also contradicted by Noah and company's ages and our current reality.

In any case you avoided answering my question.

God set down the10 commandments and provided a clear list of things he was banning.And it did not include slavery and thus as you say.

given to the Jews they were to act to stop them sinning

Thus god explicitly did not consider slavery a sin in your understanding of the 10 commandments.

When the deluge came everything that died, so died their genes but not so those in the Ark because by their reproducing the genetic code carried on. Now by bottleneck I assume you mean the eight human survivors and itis in that you have difficulty but why? For a start we don't know how many of the women on board became pregnant but didn't deliver their babies until dry land was attained nor do we know how many female offspring there were. Obviously the women then were just as fertile, perhaps more so, than today's versions. Anyway it didn't take long for them to spread across the land and that being accelerated when God broke up their language into various dialects. As the sexual drive in men is perhaps one of his first priorities the birth rate must have been high meaning it wouldn't take long for the world to start to worry about overpopulation as it has done in my lifetime.

You very much misunderstand my point. I am not interested in breeding. But observed genetics. Now first let's see if we agree on something because it will be important or at least affect the discussion. As I read the text the Arc takes on only those living on land. And than asserts everything not in the arc is going to die. It apparently does not mean any aquatic creatures. I have issues with that since ofcourse the brackish brine that mixing of salt and fresh water would likely wipe a lot of things - possibly most aquatic life. Yes some aquatic life can move between fresh and salt water but very much a minority. In any case I am going to ignore that.

Second you are maintaining a young earth creation stance correct? Derived from absolute Biblical literalism I don't think I can recall you putting absolute dates to that you may have but I not looking for them now. So for purposes of discussion after a quick survey of young earth creation web sites I am assuming the following. I think you have stated to be a believer in a 6000 year old-ish earth (thus a ~4000BC creation date (1)). Others appear to go out 12,000 to 15,000years but that is immaterial for this discussion. What is important for me now is the flood date. Now I have seen it put often at ~4500BP. Or 2300 to 3300 years before Christ. I suppose the 3300 yearnumber is used by those have an older earth than 6000 years? I am going to go with 2300 years before Christ thus ~2300 BC or ~4300 BP. Again I guessing on views. Apologies if I am swinging and missing on yours and feel free to correct me of your particular view.

As I said I was not talking about breeding. But since you raised it seeing as ~ AD 1800 is when we can say with some certainty that world population was was about 1billion. We can ignore population growth after that since its the product of modern technology and its medical and health benefits ona increasing pace that simply existed no place previously.

What that means is you have about ~4100years to go from seven err no its just six to a billion. That math even in the crudest form only works works only with fantastical numbers for general population growth. And that is general all the time and not suffering any retrograde events (which of course many are well documented). You would need a general constant population growth rate of about a little over 0.46%. That sustained rate of growth simply does not exist in the world before 1800. Maybe in a few isolated times an places of prosperity and security in a situation of post decline and with immigration but not just by breeding and not in perpetuity.

Obviously the women then were just as fertile, perhaps more so, than today's versions

I not sure what you mean here, I also don't think you do. The simple fact is before modern medical care child birth was was incredibly risky for a women (and their newchildren). Given what the evidence shows for general relatively poor stature and poor comparative health one can hardly posit a higher premodern fertility rate.

As the sexual drive in men is perhaps one of his first priorities the birth rate must have been high meaning it wouldn't take long for the world to start to worry about overpopulation as it has done in my lifetime.

That statement is speculation detached from reality and I have no ideal what you mean by birth rate.

Since I again don't really understand your time frame I not going to do more than that unless you want to.

But as I said breeding was not mypoint. My point was that your story from the Bible requires that avisible genetic bottle based on 2 pairs of animals existed in every species on the boat but the by the 7s and humans which is just 6 and thus effectively the same. No such generalized bottleneck and utter collapse of genetic diversity exists. In the time frame you posit~4100 years ago - you could now get a organ transplant from any human and probably a skin graft and likely a blood transfusion because you would be so genetically similar to everyone on earth. Needing no immune suppression drugs to keep you body from rejecting foreign tissue – because it would not see it as such. Moreover we should be able to see a comparative diversity in the genetics of aquatic life.The fact we have comparable diversity in general across both groups shows the arc story has well holes.

edit - sorry if there are any more missing spaces pasting from Open office to here seems to loose me some random number of word spaces.





1.
Note the Early Church thinkers using the just Bible chronology generally has the earth over 7000 years old now