The Great Flood

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That's where my Mitochondrial Hypothesis comes in. See, these 8 figures in the pantomime were really the ones who passed on mitochondrial DNA to the rest of the human race ...

You mean, one of the four families of Noa's ark, went to Aurstralia and set up a civilization some tens of thousands of year earlier than the Flooding? And the Innuit bransch of the Noa family went to Greenland where they fed on seals fat? Not to mentionned the Indians of Noa who went walking up to the strait of Bering and then walked all the way down to Fuego de la Terra? 🙂

No, serious... How did the original people of Australia, Greenland and South America really survive the great flooding?

The great flooding is an interesting story, but so are the Lords of the Rings...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You mean, one of the four families of Noa's ark, went to Aurstralia and set up a civilization some tens of thousands of year earlier than the Flooding? And the Innuit bransch of the Noa family went to Greenland where they fed on seals fat? Not to mentionned the Indians of Noa who went walking up to the strait of Bering and then walked all the way down to ...[text shortened]... t flooding?

The great flooding is an interesting story, but so are the Lords of the Rings...

they didn't, all the people you mentioned are descendants of noah and his sons who got busy and bred like rabbits.


who was the individual that claimed t-rexes were vegetarian(as were all the carnivorous animals) and present on the arc? i keep forgetting to present him with the opportunity to win a darwin award.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
they didn't, all the people you mentioned are descendants of noah and his sons who got busy and bred like rabbits.


who was the individual that claimed t-rexes were vegetarian(as were all the carnivorous animals) and present on the arc? i keep forgetting to present him with the opportunity to win a darwin award.

It was some kind of fundamentalist creationist who had explanation to everything and didn't believe in any science disproving him. Funny kind of guy... He hasn't been here for a while.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You mean, one of the four families of Noa's ark, went to Aurstralia and set up a civilization some tens of thousands of year earlier than the Flooding?

You can set the Flood anywhere in time you like. So, imagine that the Flood is an ancient memory derived from the family of Mitochondrial Eve who perhaps survived a nasty experience with a flood, only to go on and found the human race.

By the way, what's a rational explanation for the near universality of this particular myth?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You mean, one of the four families of Noa's ark, went to Aurstralia and set up a civilization some tens of thousands of year earlier than the Flooding? And the Innuit bransch of the Noa family went to Greenland where they fed on seals fat? Not to mentionned the Indians of Noa who went walking up to the strait of Bering and then walked all the way down to ...[text shortened]... t flooding?

The great flooding is an interesting story, but so are the Lords of the Rings...

Ridiculous counter-argument. Those territories were populated by migration. Why couldn't the flood precede such migrations?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think the argument is that Lots wifes murder might have been justifiable if she was sufficiently guilty of sin, but he does not believe that every human being on the planet other than Noah and co were guilty of sins deserving of death.

All she did was look behind her.

The existence of death itself is where you all should be looking. Had GOD spared all those people, it would have made no difference in the end. He just did it to make a point. But how could GOD invent death? That's the most heinous crime of all. Let us rail against the injustice of it all.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You can set the Flood anywhere in time you like. So, imagine that the Flood is an ancient memory derived from the family of Mitochondrial Eve who perhaps survived a nasty experience with a flood, only to go on and found the human race.

By the way, what's a rational explanation for the near universality of this particular myth?

Hold your horses (literally!), what do you mean "found" the human race? Remember that Mitochondrial Eve is a misnomer.

Originally posted by Palynka
Ridiculous counter-argument. Those territories were populated by migration. Why couldn't the flood precede such migrations?

The method of deciding how long two population have been apart from eachother, the Mitochondrial Hypothesis mentionned by Bosse de Nage among othere methods, can decide quite accurately that the indians of extreme South America, Innuits of Greenland, and Aborigines of Australia, have been parted from eachother by far more ancient times than the Ark of Noa.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The method of deciding how long two population have been apart from eachother, the Mitochondrial Hypothesis mentionned by Bosse de Nage, can decide quite accurately that the indians of extreme South America, Innuits of Greenland, and Aborigines of Australia, have been parted from eachother by far more ancient times than the Ark of Noa.

What time was that exactly? It doesn't say in the Bible.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The method of deciding how long two population have been apart from eachother, the Mitochondrial Hypothesis mentionned by Bosse de Nage, can decide quite accurately that the indians of extreme South America, Innuits of Greenland, and Aborigines of Australia, have been parted from eachother by far more ancient times than the Ark of Noa.

Noah is just a version of an older myth. Can you tell me when this myth began exactly? No, you can't.

Originally posted by Palynka
Hold your horses (literally!), what do you mean "found" the human race? Remember that Mitochondrial Eve is a misnomer.

Well, one good myth deserves another. But anyhow let's assume that we all stem from a small group of people, possibly one clan.

Originally posted by Palynka
Noah is just a version of an older myth. Can you tell me when this myth began exactly? No, you can't.

All I want is a rational explanation for the near universality of the flood myth.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What time was that exactly? It doesn't say in the Bible.

Well, according to Bishop Ussher of Ireland, who 'very scientifically', or perhaps by a vision of god, decided that the day of genisis was th October 23rd the year 4004 B.C. The great flooding couldn't be before that.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, according to Bishop Ussher of Ireland, who 'very scientifically', or perhaps by a vision of god, decided that the day of genisis was th October 23rd the year 4004 B.C. The great flooding couldn't be before that.

god created the world in autumn? no wonder he was gloom throughout the OT

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, according to Bishop Ussher of Ireland, who 'very scientifically', or perhaps by a vision of god, decided that the day of genisis was th October 23rd the year 4004 B.C. The great flooding couldn't be before that.

Why should we believe him? He obviously took it all too literally. Don't forget the temporal elasticity defence.