Post flood questions

[Skaloop]

Mamma mia! That's some piece of exegesis!

I'd have to give you an A+ for that, eh?

Good job!

Dude, you said almost the same thing when I previously reposted that elsewhere: #7. Complete with the mamma mia.

Did you look that up, remember it, or was it coincidence? Or did you catch my post here within the short time it took me to change it from the #6 repost to the #83 original?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't have degrees in geology, chemistry, or physics but you're willing to jump into those fields and mess up the place.

-- I am?

My point is simple - infectious diseases had to be on the Ark.

If you say so -- I'll take your word for it.

How would you account for them?

Why should I have to?

If God can save Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego from direct fire, He can certainly save eight people from cooties.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dude, you said almost the same thing when I previously reposted that elsewhere: #7. Complete with the mamma mia.

Did you look that up, remember it, or was it coincidence?

A coincidence, I assure you.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Why should I have to?

Microorganisms are life, just like the rest of the animals. Sure, the Bible authors didn't know about them necessarily, but if the global flood story is true, the life of the microorganisms must have been preserved because they are here today.

If God can save Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego from direct fire, He can certainly save eight people from cooties.

So you're saying that they all carried every virus in their bodies but God "made them better" or asymptomatic? How many people were on this Ark again, 8? This would imply that before the earth was repopulated, everyone in their small group was infected with these diseases. Why would God do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Microorganisms are life, just like the rest of the animals. Sure, the Bible authors didn't know about them necessarily, but if the global flood story is true, the life of the microorganisms must have been preserved because they are here today.

Cocker Spaniels are here today. Does this mean they were on the Ark?

So you're saying that they all carried every virus in their bodies but God "made them better" or asymptomatic?

Well, I guess 'asymptomatic' would be the better answer of the two.

I do believe all flesh had corrupted itself with sin and diseases, but the Bible says in Genesis 6:9 that Noah was a just and perfect man before the LORD, so I imagine that he and his bloodline kept themselves as pure and chaste as possible.

How many people were on this Ark again, 8? This would imply that before the earth was repopulated, everyone in their small group was infected with these diseases. Why would God do that?

The infections we see today could be nothing like the infections they experienced back then.

Are you trying to convince me that the same cooties existed today as existed back then?

 

[mushy366]

You realise that when you pick answers to these flood questions off the top of your head, it does not actually say anything about them in the bible and you are just making assumptions. Therefore its not the word of god, therefore its most likely wrong... right AV?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Cocker Spaniels are here today. Does this mean they were on the Ark?

No, cocker spaniels were selectively bred from wolves, like all other domestic dogs. The entirety of the bacterial, fungal, protozoan, and viral worlds is far too expansive to have diversified in a couple thousand years only after the flood.

Well, I guess 'asymptomatic' would be the better answer of the two.

I do believe all flesh had corrupted itself with sin and diseases, but the Bible says in Genesis 6:9 that Noah was a just and perfect man before the LORD, so I imagine that he and his bloodline kept themselves as pure and chaste as possible.

So they didn't carry those diseases now?

The infections we see today could be nothing like the infections they experienced back then.

Are you trying to convince me that the same cooties existed today as existed back then?

Yes. Why not? What's your evidence that they weren't the same? Pathogens are resilient; whenever there is a place to live, they will take it. While back then they might not have had our exact Hepatitis C Virus, they likely had something very similar. Infections were the leading natural killers in the days before sanitation and antibiotics, so you know that was their golden era.

 

[AV1611VET]

You realise that when you pick answers to these flood questions off the top of your head, it does not actually say anything about them in the bible and you are just making assumptions. Therefore its not the word of god, therefore its most likely wrong... right AV?

Yes, that is correct.

That is why I asked you this in my first reply to you:

If you don't read the Bible, how is it you just happen to ask questions that aren't expressly covered in Writing?

I wasn't born yesterday -- I'm getting to know you guys real well.

 

[Greg1234]

Microorganisms are life, just like the rest of the animals. Sure, the Bible authors didn't know about them necessarily,

The bible authors span way back in history as the ancient's ancients. On par with a creation, the faculties they would still possess from that event would enable them to see and understand more than just microbial life.

but if the global flood story is true, the life of the microorganisms must have been preserved because they are here today.

They never left. All parts were flooded or at least affected by the flood, not all as dire as the center(s) of concentration.

 

[Jro]

Haha, there were areas where the water was very dilute?

 

[Greg1234]

Haha, there were areas where the water was very dilute?

Yes, the water level of floods can vary. And yes the salinity of the bodies of water can also vary ( Salinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). There is also the ripple effect from the area of concentration, etc.

 

[Jro]

Yes, the water level of floods can vary. And yes the salinity of the bodies of water can also vary ( Salinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). There is also the ripple effect from the area of concentration, etc.

How would that help preserve obligate intracellular parasites? Might as well say "MAGIC" and be done with it.

 

[Greg1234]

How would that help preserve obligate intracellular parasites? Might as well say "MAGIC" and be done with it.

All parts were flooded or at least affected by the flood, not all as dire as the center(s) of concentration.

 

[mushy366]

Av, i dont read the bible, however, i was taught it in school; thats how i know.

 

[Jro]

All parts were flooded or at least affected by the flood, not all as dire as the center(s) of concentration.

It doesn't matter if the areas were completely unaffected- intracellular parasites need to be inside a cell to live and reproduce. If they weren't in the humans on the ark, they wouldn't have survived even if the flood did not affect their immediate area whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Av, i dont read the bible, however, i was taught it in school; thats how i know.

That's how you know what?

To ask questions you know aren't expressly covered by the Scriptures, then complain that my answers aren't supported by the Scriptures?

In my five years here, I can say that that is what you guys mainly do here.

With a few exceptions where you ask a question thinking it's not covered by the Scriptures, like who was first at the tomb on Resurrection day, this is your modus operandi.

Just like you won't post quotes from the Bible on FSTDT, like we saying Jesus walked on water, you won't ask questions you know are covered by the Scriptures.

And that suits me just fine -- I can speculate on the Flood all day; the Flood is my minor forte.

In short, you force us to say 'God did it' -- then complain we're God-of-the-gaps.

 

[Greg1234]

It doesn't matter if the areas were completely unaffected- intracellular parasites need to be inside a cell to live and reproduce. If they weren't in the humans on the ark, they wouldn't have survived even if the flood did not affect their immediate area whatsoever.

If the areas were "completely unaffected", what killed the hosts?

 

[Jro]

If the areas were "completely unaffected", what killed the hosts?

Because they were outside of the cells that they parasitize. Many obligate parasites need to live inside their hosts and if they are exposed to the environment they die. Many obligate intracellular parasites need to live within human cells or they die.

 

[Greg1234]

Because they were outside of the cells that they parasitize. Many obligate parasites need to live inside their hosts and if they are exposed to the environment they die. Many obligate intracellular parasites need to live within human cells or they die.

You didn't read the question.

 

[Jro]

You didn't read the question.

Ha, too right.