Did Noah have help?

Started by Shakyamunison12 pages

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Here's the click-able link for it --

I usually leave web addresses in URL format so that they remain explorable for people once these threads are archived, but, before that time, I like things to be as convenient as possible for current readers, too.

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

Source: "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Discover Magazine, May 1987, pp. 64-66.
Jared Diamond, University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

Okay, I read it. This reminds me of the book the forest people (I don't remember who wrote it). It was a researcher who lived with the pigmies to study them. After a few years he had to leave because if he didn't, he would have never left. Life was that much better as a pigmy then western society.

I thought the over use of the word "progressive" was hinting at a hidden agenda, but the write never persuade that line of thought.

What did this have to do with the OP?

You've never truly had sex, until you've had pygmy sex

Okay! a little back reading helped.

The fact that humans may have been healthier in the past does not prove a world wide flood.

To say we were not there, is to say that thing in the past do not leave evidence in the present, and that is NOT true.

The idea of a world wide floor has been disproved over and over again. The geological evidence points in the opposite direction. There have been many floods in different locations, but none that would cover all the Earth. However, I am assuming that we are talking about the time when humans have been on the Earth. 65 million years ago, there may have been a flood that cover much of the Earth, but humans did not exist then. Before that, the Earth was covered by ice in the snowball Earth, but that was 1/2 a billion years ago or so. Again, humans had not evolved yet.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've never truly had sex, until you've had pygmy sex

According to the book, the pygmies (thanks for the correct spelling) got him a wife, because they thought it was strange for a man to live without a wife. However, he did not have sex with her.

Was he gay?

Originally posted by Robtard
Was he gay?

😂

The Forest People by Colin M. Turnbull

It's a good book, and well written. Maybe too well written 😉 .

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay! a little back reading helped.

The fact that humans may have been healthier in the past does not prove a world wide flood.

To say we were not there, is to say that thing in the past do not leave evidence in the present, and that is NOT true.

The idea of a world wide floor has been disproved over and over again. The geological evidence points in the opposite direction. There have been many floods in different locations, but none that would cover all the Earth. However, I am assuming that we are talking about the time when humans have been on the Earth. 65 million years ago, there may have been a flood that cover much of the Earth, but humans did not exist then. Before that, the Earth was covered by ice in the snowball Earth, but that was 1/2 a billion years ago or so. Again, humans had not evolved yet.

I think this site provides a reasonable origin of the flood myth. Don't know if it is complete fact, but it is a good theory

http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-great-flood-and-population-migrations.html#lesson

Originally posted by Lestov16
I think this site provides a reasonable origin of the flood myth. Don't know if it is complete fact, but it is a good theory

http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-great-flood-and-population-migrations.html#lesson

Ya, I've heard this before. That would be a flood story I might believe. There needs to be more proof. But that is not the story in the bible when taken literally. 😄

Nothing is more objective fact than the literal translation of a myth of scientifically ignorant desert primitives 🙂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay! a little back reading helped.

The fact that humans may have been healthier in the past does not prove a world wide flood.

Quite so, but it is very consistent with Great Flood theory, even as the OP alluded to in another recent thread:

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Don't you think in a environment without pollution, radiation, cell phones, millions of chemicals surrounding us, chemical treated water we drink, not having much of an ozone or firmament to protect us, diseases, hunger, malnutrition, degeneration of our food's nutrients we actually could be living shorter then people from the ancient scriptures? I would think those people lived a much cleaner life without all the current products of the industrial revolution and its citizens ...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=592744&pagenumber=4

Originally posted by Robtard

I read parts of White Fang in middle school ...

Indeed a great many people have; unlike the Jared Diamond article, White Fang is easy to understand and common reading for a great number, even for many beginning readers, even the readers that form the KMC audience.

This warrants its own interlude.

White Fang is generally interesting reading, and part of the public domain.

It should largely explain itself ...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... [W]hite Fang came to look forward eagerly to the gathering of the men around his pen. It meant a fight; and this was the only way that was now vouchsafed him of expressing the life that was in him. Tormented, incited to hate, he was kept a prisoner so that there was no way of satisfying that hate except at the times his master saw fit to put another dog against him. Beauty Smith had estimated his powers well, for he was invariably the victor. One day, three dogs were turned in upon him in succession. Another day, a full-grown wolf, fresh-caught from the Wild, was shoved in through the door of the pen. And on still another day two dogs were set against him at the same time. This was his severest fight, and although in the end he killed them both he was himself half killed in doing it ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm of the opinion that the more of the passages that are read, the better the impression and understanding, but, if you are short on time, note that only the
bolded portions are fully necessary to understand what's singular enough about the Chapter 3 and 4 accounts of the book to warrant mention here.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... [White Fang] was a professional fighting animal ... he fought all sizes and breeds of dogs. It was a savage land, the men were savage, and the fights were usually to the death.

Since White Fang continued to fight, it is obvious that it was the other dogs that died. He never knew defeat. His early training, when he fought with Lip-lip and the whole puppy-pack, stood him in good stead. There was the tenacity with which he clung to the earth. No dog could make him lose his footing. This was the favorite trick of the wolf breeds -- to rush in upon him, either directly or with an unexpected swerve, in the hope of striking his shoulder and overthrowing him. Mackenzie hounds, Eskimo and Labrador dogs, huskies and Malemutes -- all tried it on him, and all failed. He was never known to lose his footing. Men told this to one another, and looked each time to see it happen; but White Fang always disappointed them.

Then there was his lightning quickness. It gave him a tremendous advantage over his antagonists. No matter what their fighting experience, they had never encountered a dog that moved so swiftly as he. Also to be reckoned with, was the immediateness of his attack. The average dog was accustomed to the preliminaries of snarling and bristling and growling, and the average dog was knocked off his feet and finished before he had begun to fight or recovered from his surprise. So often did this happen, that it became the custom to hold White Fang until the other dog went through its preliminaries, was good and ready, and even made the first attack ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bonus: White Fang
Brief Chapter 3 Interlude, extended


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" [G]reatest of all the advantages in White Fang's favor, was his experience. He knew more about fighting than did any of the dogs that faced him. He had fought more fights, knew how to meet more tricks and methods, and had more tricks himself, while his own method was scarcely to be improved upon.

As the time went by, he had fewer and fewer fights. Men despaired of matching him with an equal, and Beauty Smith was compelled to pit wolves against him. These were trapped by the Indians for the purpose, and a fight between White Fang and a wolf was always sure to draw a crowd. Once, a full-grown female lynx was secured, and this time White Fang fought for his life. Her quickness matched his; her ferocity equalled his; while he fought with his fangs alone, and she fought with her sharp-clawed feet as well.

But after the lynx, all fighting ceased for White Fang.
There were no more animals with which to fight -- at least, there was none considered worthy of fighting with him. So he remained on exhibition until spring, when one Tim Keenan, a faro-dealer, arrived in the land. With him came the first bulldog that had ever entered the Klondike. That this dog and White Fang should come together was inevitable, and for a week the anticipated fight was the mainspring of conversation in certain quarters of the town ... "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Quite so, but it is very consistent with Great Flood theory, even as the OP alluded to in another recent thread:...

Sure there could have been a flood in the black sea 8000 years ago, and that event could have led to stories that have been past down to us. However, the main point behind the biblical flood story, that a god destroyed the Earth with a flood because of the wickedness of man, is without any support.

If a great lake in North America dumped water into the oceans, and this water caused a flood in the black sea, then where is god?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If a great lake in North America dumped water into the oceans, and this water caused a flood in the black sea, then where is god?

I think you may have misunderstood.

By "Great Flood" I was referring to the Worldwide Flood, not the more localized one proposed a few posts ago by the new poster.

Your proposed Black Sea flood would have appealed to me several years ago, incidentally. There might even be a good case to make that, despite the relatively small fraction of the globe it actually encompasses, the human-inhabited portion of Earth may well have been limited to that region.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
the main point behind the biblical flood story, that a god destroyed the Earth with a flood because of the wickedness of man, is without any support.

I'm not sure how much of your Methodist background you bring to this discussion when you use language like this. For that matter, I'm not sure how fundamentalist your particular Methodist group's worldview is.

Actually, now that I come to think of it, I'm not sure how fundamentalist Methodist groups are in general. One school of Christian thought would assert that non-Biblical flood stories might well involve a god: Satan.
Certainly I've heard the Enlil and Enki described in your Black Sea account were guises of him in recent videos.

As for the KJV account, I'm not nearly so convinced the Great Flood is without support as you allude. Actually, I'm not convinced at all.
I'd appreciate knowing even 3 things you think would have occurred with a world flood that did not happen and/or that we would or would not see evidence for.

If you want to move onto your point with the White Fang excerpts, it would be nice 🙂

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I think you may have misunderstood.

By "Great Flood" I was referring to the [b]Worldwide Flood, not the more localized one proposed a few posts ago by the new poster.

Your proposed Black Sea flood would have appealed to me several years ago, incidentally. There might even be a good case to make that, despite the relatively small fraction of the globe it actually encompasses, the human-inhabited portion of Earth may well have been limited to that region.

I'm not sure how much of your Methodist background you bring to this discussion when you use language like this. For that matter, I'm not sure how fundamentalist your particular Methodist group's worldview is.

Actually, now that I come to think of it, I'm not sure how fundamentalist Methodist groups are in general. One school of Christian thought would assert that non-Biblical flood stories might well involve a god: Satan.
Certainly I've heard the Enlil and Enki described in your Black Sea account were guises of him in recent videos.

As for the KJV account, I'm not nearly so convinced the Great Flood is without support as you allude. Actually, I'm not convinced at all.
I'd appreciate knowing even 3 things you think would have occurred with a world flood that did not happen and/or that we would or would not see evidence for. [/B]

I don't know anything about Methodists. I was born and raised a Baptist, not Methodist.

To say that the Earth was covered by a great biblical flood in the time when humans where on the earth is an extraordinary claim. That extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

It is much simpler to say that the story of Noah and the Ark is just that, a story. This would not be an extraordinary claim, and would not require extraordinary proof.

Here is my standard proof. Humans have written a lot of stories. We have building filled with books, we call them libraries, and a large portion of these books are fiction. Also, floods have happened everywhere on the Earth over time. It would make sense that humans would write fictional stories about events that did happen. Gone With The Wind is a good example. It was a fictional story placed in a historic setting. Therefore, the story of Noah and the Ark is most likely a fictional story placed in a historic setting, just like Gone With the Wing.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you want to move onto your point with the White Fang excerpts, it would be nice ...

Sure.

I'd read long ago that Jack London, author of both Call of the Wild and White Fang, was able to write thrilling accounts of dogfights because he had firsthand personal experience. He had intimate knowledge of dogfighting and dog behavior, along with a plethora of other competencies earned from his own frontier life. He supposedly got the idea of White Fang, iirc, because he saw a wolf-dog hybrid that beat just about every dog it ever came up against.

In a very non-coincidental parallel, Chapter 3 of London's White Fang establishes the formidability of its own wolf-dog hybrid, White Fang.

The author takes great pains to convince of it, repeating it several times in several ways and describing various impressive opponents.

If you remember the book,

or read the excerpt I linked,

http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/WhiteFang/4chapter4.html

or simply noted what I bolded and underlined, however

then you know White Fang eventually does meet his match, and that in the form of the very unlikely-seeming combatant Cherokee, which was either an English or an American bulldog.

Why is that significant?

It's significant because bulldogs of today, quite a separate breed from the so-called "pit"bulls that regularly used to feature in the news, are widely regarded as relatively gentle, completely UNsuited-to-fighting family pets.

To see one of these today or even a generation ago, in, say, the 1980s and 1990s "Lucky Dog" commercials, is to wonder why London took so much "artistic license" to have his own ultimate dog lose to one of them.

The answer from most indications, however, was that he didn't.

It was NOT artistic license to suppose the bulldog of London's day could take down an animal like White Fang. They were bred to face far bigger challenges than mere fighting wolves and other dogs.

Read now something most people DON'T know about the way things used to be, one of many striking illustrations discoverable in written accounts of yesteryear ...

(This particular one was found in 1999's Webster's Word Histories, Page 72)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The low-slung bulldog has bowed front legs that are so far apart that the dog looks as if it were eternally braced for trouble. Indeed its whole body has a sturdy, rock-solid appearance that suggests it could withstand a high wind and not blow over. There was a time when the bulldog needed all the sturdiness it could muster. It also needed plenty of courage, as well as something the breed is NOT characterized by today: ferocity. The bulldog gets its name not from the fact that it resembles a domestic bull but from its use in the cruel and savage sport of bullbaiting.
The bulldog was developed in England centuries ago specifically to attack an angry bull for the amusement of spectators, who could wager on the outcome.
The bull was chained by the neck or leg to a stake in an open arena, and often it was roused to fury by being whipped or by having pepper blown into its nose. Then bulldogs were loosed in the arena. The dogs had been specially trained to grab the bull's sensitive nose. The most successful ones could slip past the bull's horns, seize it by the nose, and hold on, no matter how the bull tried to shake them loose.

There were no winners in bullbaiting, for the bulldogs were often horribly injured or killed, and few bulls succeeded in shaking off the determined dogs. If one did, the spectators simply released more dogs into the arena. When bullbaiting was finally outlawed by an act of the British Parliament in 1835, the bulldog's admirers suffered mixed feelings. As an attack animal the dog had outlived its usefulness.
The bulldog's bred-in savagery could not be tolerated in a family pet.
Yet, admirers did not want to lose the many desirable qualities of this old breed, such as determination and extraordinary courage. So the dog was developed into the compact, muscular creature that it is today, with its former aggressiveness completely eradicated. Its four-square, low-center-of-gravity build has not changed. Nor its undershot jaw. These characteristics helped its ancestors stand their ground and bite tenaciously and powerfully. Its determination remains unaltered, too. In fact, the breed's name is a synonym for tenacity. See also PIT buLL [bull + dog] bullet See ballot. [MF boulette small ball, small missile and boulet cannonball, missile, diminutives of boule ball] bulwark, etc ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And your point of London taking or not taking artistic license in having the canine protagonist of his story finally lose in a fight which is the fulcrum for the rest of the story matters here how?

eat

Originally posted by Robtard
And your point of London taking or not taking artistic license in having the canine protagonist of his story finally lose in a fight which is the fulcrum for the rest of the story matters here how?

The White Fang account, coupled with that word history of the bulldog, is an illustration that conventional wisdom, formed, typically by just assuming we know how the world works today, and then extrapolating backwards, is a poor substitute for actual investigation and research.

The Jared Diamond "worst mistake" article is an illustration of the same thing, incidentally.