Noah's descendants

NO.

Different blood types, (i mean they dont just pop up.)

2. Noah is just based on the Sumerian legend of Gilgamesh. Abraham Left Ur in Mesopotamia where the Legends of Gilgamesh were popular. Make the connection.

*the rest as if my 2nd point didnt exist

3. How long ago was Noah supposed to be? 3000 years ago considering it was after abraham. All the human variations could not occur in this time. It has taken somewhere from 60,000 - 40, 000 to create the modern human variations. (blood type, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, etc.)

4. Feastible??? HAHAHAHa

Etruscia:

Ummmm God makes the wisdom of men foolish and stuff.... So there!

TTF

Ahh, rederick when theres no response able to be given. Classic

I tire of your logic and give you blind faith to make it go away.

I am a Christian - or try to be - but ceased reading the bible literally years ago. I think they are great stories, advice, and truths... but literal.... not so much. So my rhetoric was a joke - and a quote from 1st Corinthians.

TTF

Yeah i was aware, i used to be Christian, but not so much anymore. And by not so much i mean not at all, other than the love thy neighbour stuff and such.

Pretty much everything in the Old Testament has been historically refuted, all could be percieved as big allegories but that is thinking highly of those who wrote them.

I think the point of the old testament is not to think highly of those who wrote it - or who are written about. For those most part - the people of the old testament are not very good people - or atleast all have thier flaws. I think thier points are mostly points of God's mercy - not of thier greatness.

To look for thier greatness is to put a western conception of excellence on them that is is not historically nor contextually warranted.

TTF

Well if the people who didnt write them are great and the stories arent true. Then could it just be one ancient mans or a group of anicent men's view on what god could be like and how his mercy would show? Meaning that half the world or so worships a hypothesi?

Re: Noah's descendants


Mathematically possible probably, but not true. The story of Noah is sufficiently true as far as it goes, but the literatures of other nations mention people and animals surviving in high places and on small craft and anything which could float for the better part of a year as well.

Other than that, the big genetic divide inthe world is east/west and not north/south, meaning that the black and white races are much closer to eachother genetically than either is to the yellow. Noah is probably the ancestor of most if not all semitic, japhetic (IndoEuropean), and hamitic (dark skinned) peoples; east Asians in all likelihood survived as their own literature indicates, i.e. on mountains and whatever could be made to float.

Bollocks. A gene-pool of a half-dozen families would have cousins breeding with cousins pretty quick.

This would have two results:
-widespread genetic diseases (esp Tay Sachs)
-consanginous relationships that would piss off the Invisible Sky Being with the requirement to kill every living thing (in a loving, caring way)

Whether you believe in evolution, creation, or whatever, there had to have been a first pair of humans. Obviously starting from that first pair didn't kill us off.

The race survives if they spread out in something resembling a hurry. The problem with inbreeding mainly sets in when people stick around in one place. Somebody needed to explain that to Stephen Gould...

Well just to reiderate, modern humans were completely distinct 50, 000 years ago. No one recorded anything of a giant flood killing off everybody 50,oo1 years ago, and there is no geological evidence to back it up. and the beggining of those races would be from dozens and dozens of families not one.

Something I've seen posted on FreeRepublic a couple of times which makes a certain amount of logical sense:


It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional flood. That, however, does not jibe with the facts of the historical record. The flood turns out to have been part and parcel of some larger, solar-system-wide calamity.


In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice within a short space:



These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:



Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one day. That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood. The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".

It turns out, that the bible claims that Methuselah died in the year of the flood. It may not say so directly, but the ages given in Genesis 5 along with the note that the flood began in the 600'th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) add up that way:



Thus we have Methusaleh dying in the year of the flood; seven days prior to the flood...

Louis Ginzburg's seven-volume "Legends of the Jews", the largest body of Midrashim ever translated into German and English to my knowledge, expands upon the laconic tales of the OT.

From Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews, Vol V, page 175:




The reference is, again, to Gen. 7.4, which reads:



The note that "God did not wish Methusaleh to die at the same time as the sinners" indicates that Methusaleh died at pretty nearly precisely the beginning of the week prior to the flood. The week of "God causing the primordial lights to shine" was the week of intense light before the flood.

What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and radiation, and then the flood itself. Moreover, the signs of the impending disaster were obvious enough for at least one guy, Noah, to take extraordinary precautions.

The ancient (but historical) world knew a number of seven-day light festivals, Hanukkah, the Roman Saturnalia etc. All were ultimately derived from the memory of the seven days prior to the flood.


If this entire deal is a made-up story, then here is a case of the storyteller (isaiah) making extra work for himself with no possible benefit, the detail of the seven days of light being supposedly known amongst the population, and never included in the OT story directly.

Greek and Roman authors, particularly Hesiod and ovid, Chinese authors and others, note that small groups of men and animals survived the flood on high places and on anything which could float for a year. There is no essential contradiction between this and the biblical account. Noah's descendants were probably unaware of anybody else surviving and wrote the story that way.

Well if you read my first post on this forum, Noah is not Noah. HEs gilgamesh. Abraham came from UR, where the flood accounts of Gilgamesh were popular. I have no doubt that there was a flood somewhere in ancient world thousands of years ago, not on the scale you describe. (You can't use the bible, a historically innacurate book, which more or less is ancient semeitc peoples opinions or stories, as proofs). One theory is that the black sea flooded.

A population evolves through a shift in gene frequencies over time. You don't need to start with a single pair of humans, but a population that is gradually becoming human.

So there's hope for Wisconsin to be entering the Early Neolithic sometime in the near future?

The fossil record doesn't work that way...

Please elaborate.

If gungsnake your referring to the out of africa hypothesis, that theory is being widdled down more and more. More evidences is pointing to evelution into modern human beings in different parallel geographic areas. China, South Eastern Europe, and Africa.

Ohhh, ouch!