Übergeek 바둑이: Noah was a Time Lord and had a TARDIS. That or the original story via oral retelling became a little .. ... exaggerated.

It's a little Gilgameshy in origin... or Atrahasism?? Who knows who first told the tale.

Übergeek 바둑이: Maybe that was back before all the continents split apart?
I suppose there's a chance that there is some historic "truth" to the story, but I assume the Bible exaggerated it a bunch, or something has been lost in the "translation" over the years. But, I'm a bit biased I guess, since I am not a fan of the book.

rod03801: I don't recall anyone arguing about there being one large supercontinent at one time. It even has a name. Pangaea, or Pangea.

As for how could all those animals get into one little ark? You could ask an evolutionist about speciation, but if he thinks you are talking about the ark he might forget what speciation is. lol

I wondered about how animals could make it from one continent to another after the continents began separating. Maybe they hadn't started separating yet. Or maybe it has something to do with the continents being much farther apart today than they were when they BEGAN to separate. oops, darn that caps lock button... must have touched it when my fingers weren't looking.

I wasn't trying to start up another recycle of the same old questions, but I suppose the atheists have had more than enough time to forget all about it and start this all over again.

Iamon lyme: Millions of years of tectonic movement in less than what.. a decade??

.. A genocidal God is now what you worship!!

Iamon lyme: I highly doubt the entire Earth was under water, and if so, I doubt God had anything to do with it. I pretty much assume that if there was indeed massive flooding, it was the entire world as THEY knew it.
Dunno.
And I'm NOT an Atheist.

I have my own personal beliefs that I feel no need to share, as I'm not going to (nor do I care to) change anyone else's mind.

Besides, my attitude is that ANY of us could be right. Or None of us could be right.

rod03801: um, my views are 100% correct. So ask me anything.

rod03801: Saying "I dunno" actually puts you ahead of the curve. When I started looking into these things it wasn't from the approach of do I believe it or not. The approach I took was, Was it possible for it to happen. Did it have to be a supernatural event, or was it physically possible for a flood like that to occur, and was it possible to get enough samples of animal life on something the size of the ark to account for all of the animal life we see today. Another question I needed to answer for myself was, Given what we know about the earth early on, and what a one supercontinent land mass might look like, was it even possible for a flood like that to cover the entire land mass... was there enough water, where did it all come from, etc etc. And by the way, the research I did was for myself, I wasn't trying to collect material for persuading anyone else.

To make a long story short, I eventually concluded that yes, it would have been possible for the event to literally occur as the Bible said. Why? Because the topography of the ocean floor and of the land mass back then was likely more uniform than it is today, which means it wouldn't have taken near as much water as it would today to cover every square inch of land mass. And evolutionists can be thanked for showing us how a relatively few samples of animal life could have easily multiplied into all of the species we see today, through what they call speciation. I meant to go find and show you a chart showing how the mastodon branched out into an almost unbelievable number of different species, it was a few years ago but maybe I can find it again. Anyway, seeing as how I found that information on an evolutionist website, I suppose there is no reason to not believe it... they aren't exactly in the business of trying to support the creationist viewpoint, if ya know what I mean.

There is more, but maybe this is enough for you to understand that maybe (I'm just saying maybe) a world wide flood and an ark carrying animals is not as farfetched as it sounds.

Iamon lyme: Right, but since I don't believe it's a "God-caused" thing, I don't see that it matters a whole lot anyway, if it did or didn't happen literally, or if it's been exaggerated. Except for possibly interesting meteorological history.
Anyway. I don't enjoy religious talk. So, most likely I'm going to bow out of it.

rod03801: "I don't enjoy religious talk."

Neither do I. Anywho, I coudn't find the chart I mentioned before, but I did find this one.

Übergeek 바둑이: Ha! Good question. Perhaps the flood was local. Water, especially violent flood waters, can be very destructive. I remember studying the young earth view of the flood and didn't find it particularly convincing.

Artful Dodger:

> Ha! Good question. Perhaps the flood was local. Water, especially violent flood waters, can be very destructive. I remember studying the young earth view of the flood and didn't find it particularly convincing.

There is a theory that tries to explain the origin of the flood myth. I saw it in a documentary some 20 years ago.

The theory is that the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles were blocked. The Bosphorus is the straight narrow passage that connects the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara. The Dardanelles connect the Sea of Marmara to the Mediterranean. These straits are located in modern day Turkey. Because the area was formed of a solid landmass, it was blocked and the waters of the Mediterranean could not enter what is our modern Sea of Marmara. This created a plain that sat below sea level. Then an earthquake happened several thousand years ago and the landmasses of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles collapsed. The waters of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea came pouring in and flooded what today is the Sea of Marmara. The inhabitants in the area perished as their settlements were engulfed by the rushing waters.

Both western and Soviet archaelogists tried to find remnants of settlements under the Sea of Marmara, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. However, no solid evidence was found to support this theory. There were settlements on the shores, but they did not go back far enough in time to prove the theory.

To me it was very interesting. It would show a cataclismic flood that gave origin to the myth, but would also be on a scale that is more logical than what is portrayed in the Old Testament and in other myths outside the Abrahamic religious tradition.

In reality, I think that flood myths are merely a reflection of our fear of water and our fear of the destructive power of nature. Flood myths exist everywhere, not just in the Old Testament.

The Popol Vuh of the Maya Quiche natives of Guatemala has a flood myth too. The Gods had created men made of wood, but these men were mute. They could not speak and thank their Gods for having created them. The Gods became angry and send a great flood that destroyed most of the men of wood. Those that survived ran away into the jungle and became monkeys. This flood myth has no relationship to any of the Old World myths. It merely represents two things: floods sent by the Gods destroy things, thank your Gods or they will send a flood to destroy you. The teaching in the myth is much the same as in the Old Testament. It is meant to have a didactical effect and not to be taken as some fundamental truth of what really happened.

Übergeek 바둑이: I think myth stories are facinating. Not that the flood didn't happen or the Biblical account isn't true. But it is interesting that there are so many different accounts. I particularly like the Greek Myths. Man has apparently always tried to figure out the what/why/where/when/how of our existence.