Deep hydroponics discovered in Genesis

I think a lot of people are dismissing the Genesis account of the ‘Noah Flood’ without giving it adequate consideration.

I don’t know much about biology but I did notice the bit about the dove bringing back an olive leaf:



“And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.” (Gen 10 v10&11)



The leaves did not drop off during 10 months underwater, and there is no mention that the leaf was brown or anything. If it was fresh and green then the olive tree had been doing fine underwater, receiving energy and photosynthesising.


So thousands of years before scientists found hydroponics it was all right there in the Bible for anyone to see, something nobody back then had no way of finding out.

Explain that

i suspect, the more we delve into the Biblical accounts of history, the more will be un-covered. It's all there, waiting for S-L-O-W, stumbling, finite "man" to see at least "some" of it LOL.

God bless you my sister. Excellent question, and one i did not even consider, until now.

__________________

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

"God is in the rain."~Evey in V for Vendetta

"The unexamined life is not worth living". ~Socrates

my journal/blog:


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"
The leaves did not drop off during 10 months underwater, and there is no mention that the leaf was brown or anything. If it was fresh and green then the olive tree had been doing fine underwater, receiving energy and photosynthesising."

but you forget.
trees rely on their root systems to adsorb minerals and on the concentration and difference and water evaporation preassure in the elaves to transport them to the cells capable of photosynthesis in order for them to be utilized. and when you cover the leaves in water....you stop all the water flow to the photosynthesizing cells above 1 metre. which means your tree dies.

really, even the basic claism about the flood do not hold up to scrutiny, trying to cherry pick soem observations and say it might support you, is already giving it to much consideration.

"I don’t know much about biology"

then read up on the subject before you ask such silly questions

__________________
My picture shows why creationists lose when they say T-Rex ate plants, not Adam.

[gone for undetermined time]

Hydroponics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hydroponics.
You don't drown the plant under water, only the root system is in the water / nutrient solution.

__________________
Funny thing about tracking.

Most would fear seeing this ->
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

than seeing this ->
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The OP is satire folks. You've been Poe'd.

__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

The creators of the myth never thought that far ahead. To them, it went without saying that trees would grow again once the water receded.

It's like saying that, because Santa Claus must travel faster than light to reach all the kids houses on one night, Relativity's universal speed limit must therefore be false.
But, of course, the more probable explanation is that the original creators of the myth never thought that far ahead.

Not that I'm saying Christianity is akin to St. Nick
And I didn't take you for a Creationist, Mork :s

__________________

There's a lake in my area where there are islands people jokingly named the "Sometimes Islands" because sometimes they're there, sometimes they're not, as the water level varies from summer to summer, year to year. There are other parts of the lake where there are dead trees sometimes sticking up out of the water, but these islands may be submerged for two or three years, and in a dry year, as soon as the islands appear, the trees on the islands begin to have green leaves. I've never understood how they're not dead after a two or three year submersion.

OTOH...an ark, olive branches, rainbows, water submersion (literally, baptism)...all the symbols. It seems unfair on these forums that you have to know science to criticize science, but you apparently don't have to know literature to criticize literature.

"The OP is satire folks. You've been Poe'd."

noOOOOOES!! o_O.
ah well
at least brinny didn't see it either

__________________
My picture shows why creationists lose when they say T-Rex ate plants, not Adam.

[gone for undetermined time]

"It seems unfair on these forums that you have to know science to criticize science,"

you're right it SEEMS.
but it isn't. why? because ignorance is no excuse for critizism.

"There's a lake in my area where there are islands people jokingly named the "Sometimes Islands" because sometimes they're there, sometimes they're not, as the water level varies from summer to summer, year to year. There are other parts of the lake where there are dead trees sometimes sticking up out of the water, but these islands may be submerged for two or three years, and in a dry year, as soon as the islands appear, the trees on the islands begin to have green leaves. I've never understood how they're not dead after a two or three year submersion."

that's probably because the trees weren't submerged all the way up, not forgetting possible patches of viable cells up high, or the tree creating new root structures during submergence. also, they weren't olive trees, so it's non sequiter.

"but you apparently don't have to know literature to criticize literature. "

we aren't critisizing it as literature, we are critisizing it as an actual historical document or scientific description.

__________________
My picture shows why creationists lose when they say T-Rex ate plants, not Adam.

[gone for undetermined time]

Exactly. As literature, it's actually quite good, and the KJV especially is landmark in the development of the English language.

__________________