Bible vs History

[Willum]

Noah was supposed to live around 4000 years ago, and his flood.

Which means that the entire population of the globe should have begun repopulating about then.
Why is there no evidence of this?

I mean we have great historic not only evidence, but histories of peoples living before, during and after the flood. Even the Americas.

And though dramatic, this is true of other Biblical events. We have the Sumerians positively ignoring Biblical events as if they didn't occur. The Egyptians not seeming to notice plagues and genocide and so on.

One could go through and notice all manner of things that didn't happen from the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on. We can even get good dates for when these things were supposed to occur, by how long people lived for these occurrences.

We can also note that these stories did occur in other people's fairy tales.

How do we rectify these three elements - no one noticed these epic events, the dates they failed to occur and they are other people's fairy tales, together with the truth?

[1213]

So 1213 is of the opinion that two bears WALKED the 12,434 km from Turkey to Australia, somehow traversing across the many different environments, avoiding any and all dangers and predators, swam across the ocean(s) to end up where they are now.

I have not said that two bears WALKED the 12,434 km from Turkey to Australia. I believe that the ancestors of koalas lived and got offspring and slowly, when the population grew, some of the ancestors moved closer to Australia and eventually some of the offspring were in Australia. It didnt happen instantly. Similarly, as humans have not instantly covered all continents according to modern science.

Also, after the flood, most animals were dead. It would be ridiculously stupid to think there were lot of predators.

Also, because it seems the ice age was result of the great flood and because during the ice age, glaciers were really huge, it is possible that there was dry land route to Australia. Koala ancestors didnt have to swim.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 91 by 1213]

I have not said that two bears WALKED the 12,434 km from Turkey to Australia.

From post #82:
brunumb asked: "What did they eat on the ark? How did they get to Australia after the flood? What did they eat before they got to Australia?"
1213 replied: "They probably ate something that was as good as what they nowadays eat. I think they just gradually moved by walking to there."

I believe that the ancestors of koalas lived and got offspring and slowly, when the population grew, some of the ancestors moved closer to Australia and eventually some of the offspring were in Australia. It didnt happen instantly.

What were the ancestors of koalas? According to you, there were only selected examples of animal kinds aboard the ark and they diversified afterwards to produce the huge variety of animals we see now. For example, two basic bears that diversified to produce all the different varieties of bears. As the population of the original pair grew, how and why did they decide in which direction to go and to also selectively change into the species that ended up in isolation in different parts of the world?

The original tiny population would not have grown very fast as it takes a while for animals to reach maturity and breeding age. You also need a balance of sexes. Too few females and expansion is hindered. Then, when did they start changing into the different varieties?

The problems with the ark story are endless.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 91 by 1213]

Also, after the flood, most animals were dead. It would be ridiculously stupid to think there were lot of predators.

What did the bears eat? Both on the ark and after?

[1213]

What were the ancestors of koalas?

Probably it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_koala

As the population of the original pair grew, how and why did they decide in which direction to go and to also selectively change into the species that ended up in isolation in different parts of the world?

Probable reason is, as the population grew, they needed more space. The more there were population, the further they went to find more food and space. Eventually some of them were in Australia. And not only because of own population, but because of the competition of other animals also. And it is possible that later other beings killed them that were near the ark, or the whole population moved because wanted more space and more easy life.

The original tiny population would not have grown very fast as it takes a while for animals to reach maturity and breeding age. You also need a balance of sexes. Too few females and expansion is hindered. Then, when did they start changing into the different varieties?

Koala can become pregnant after it is 3 years old and can have babies every year, as many other animals and humans also. And Koalas nowadays live 13-18 years. So, potentially one koala can have about 10 babies. Of course, we can assume they dont always get that many babies, or that some die young. But, even if we would assume relatively slow population growth, like 4 babies/couple, there could be over 8000 koalas after about 50 years and 67 million koalas after 100 years. Population growth can be really fast. But after the number grows really big, also the difficulties grow, diseases can spread more easily, there is maybe not enough food, they become easier to catch for other animals. So, I think in the beginning, the growth can be really fast, because there are not so much slowing things. But after populations grow, the growth becomes slower.

And the change, all species and humans also dont have identical babies. So, the changes begin right after population begins to grow. But by what I see, the changes are always within the attributes the species has. For example, animals have color that can vary. Even humans can have different colors and it doesnt mean white and black people are different species.

The problems with the ark story are endless.

At least for person who doesnt want to know or understand.

[1213]

What did the bears eat? Both on the ark and after?

Interesting thing is that mammals all drink milk when they are small. It could be that Noah had cows in the ark and lot of baby animals that drink milk. That would be easy solution. They would not take so much room and Noah would have to have basically lot of hay for the cows. I believe it was so, because it would have been easy way to handle the situation, especially the large animals.

After they landed, they could have eaten things that were revealed after the water decreased. There could have been lot of dead animals and plants, also water animals and plants. And many plants that would have begun to grow. And then, there would be many fast breeding animals that could be food for other quite quickly.

[Tcg]

Post deleted.

[Tcg]

It could be that Noah had cows in the ark and lot of baby animals that drink milk. That would be easy solution. They would not take so much room and Noah would have to have basically lot of hay for the cows.

Unless Noah disobeyed God's command, there would have only been 7 cows that could provide milk on the ark:

Genesis 7:2 "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate."

So, are you suggesting Noah disobeyed God, or that 7 cows could provide enough milk for all those baby animals.

There could have been lot of dead animals and plants, also water animals and plants.

Animals that would have been dead for a year or so. Are you suggesting they'd still be edible?

What are "water animals"?

[Hawkins]

Noah was supposed to live around 4000 years ago, and his flood.

You don't have to assume so. No where says the genealogy can be used for year calculation, as genealogy ties closely to how humans keeping genealogy in ancient times in the absence of paper. They didn't have the space to record down everything.

The genealogy accounts mentioned in the Bible only serve as human accounts of witnessing that Jesus is from David and subsequently from Adam, whether the Jews choose to accept the story of virgin birth or not. That is, no matter what your virgin view is, Jesus is from David and Adam. They never mean to be used as an accurate mean of calendar year calculation.

On the other hand, ancient human royal families may well choose to skip the nobodies but only record down the influential figures due to the lack of space and difficulties on maintaining the scales of tablet piles and animal skin piles. More so to the common families as they may not afford large piles of animal skins or effort in keeping precise writings either on stone tablets or animal skins. All they can do may be to memorize those had significant contributions to the family. In this case, their genealogies cannot be used for year calculation. However it won't hinder to witness Jesus as a descendant of David when both names were sincerely recorded in a family genealogy.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 98 by Hawkins]

However it won't hinder to witness Jesus as a descendant of David when both names were sincerely recorded in a family genealogy.

The Jesus character in the Christian-Jewish cult propaganda is supposed to have been sired by the mythological deity Yahweh.

This is fantasy.

If Jesus' followers were claiming him as the heir to the throne of the deposed Davids ...

AND ...

They were claiming he was a son of the local god ...

It's possible that the deposed Davids were believed to be god-kings ...

And that idea has been almost totally written out of the re-written "scriptures" by the sect that deposed the Davids.

But we do find hints.

Like the Sons of the Elohim/God that riled the genocidal Yahweh into opening the windows of the Dome of Heaven and letting in the waters of the mythological flood you've been discussing.

No biblical "God" ...

Just human politics and propaganda.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 70 by 1213]

Plants that live in water could have been eatable, when the level of water decreased. There could have easily been lot of sea food. Fast breeding animals could have quickly become food for other animals also.

Not only laughable suggestions, but baseless, unscientific claims and assumptions that show lack of knowledge of real world and physics.

The biblical flood did not happen despite the desperation of creationist think tanks to try and make it work.

To debate this nonsense is to give it credit it doesn't deserve.
Much like debating a flat earth with a flat earther.

Yes, there are flat earthers and yes there are those that believe in a magical mythological flood.

By rejecting the established science, flooders and flat earthers place themselves in a position of power. Suddenly, they feel like they're the experts and that's a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Perhaps we shouldn't encourage such thinking by debating it as if it's credible?