If alcohol never existed

[Jazzy]

What would the world be like if alcohol never existed?

 

[Lamb]

I'd be happy in a way, but I wouldn't be able to make my vanilla extract.

 

[tango]

What would the world be like if alcohol never existed?

Do you mean if ethanol never existed at all, or if drinks containing ethanol never existed?

If the former, are you restricting the discussion to ethanol or would other alcohols need to be eliminated as well?

 

[Lees]

What would the world be like if alcohol never existed?

Well, I think the world would not have lasted this long if alcohol hadn't existed.

Why? Because it ,alcohol, appears to be the result of the fermementation process. And that fermentation process did not hardly exist from Adam to the flood. Note the waters above the firmament in (Ge. 1:7)

But, when the flood came, those waters were broken up. The 'windows of heaven'. (Gen.7:11) Now the direct rays of the sun came through to the earth. Decreasing mans life span and speeding up the fermentation process considerably. Which is probably why Noah got drunk. The wine he was used to probably was nothing like the wine he now had after the flood.

My point: If alcohol never existed, as we now know it, then there would have been no flood. Meaning mankind would have literally destroyed themselves. I think most certainly the few believers left on earth, Noah, would have been eventually killed. My opinion.

But it also begs the question, did man between Adam and Noah learn the method of distilling.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

Well, I think the world would not have lasted this long if alcohol hadn't existed.

Why? Because it ,alcohol, appears to be the result of the fermementation process. And that fermentation process did not hardly exist from Adam to the flood. Note the waters above the firmament in (Ge. 1:7)

But, when the flood came, those waters were broken up. The 'windows of heaven'. (Gen.7:11) Now the direct rays of the sun came through to the earth. Decreasing mans life span and speeding up the fermentation process considerably. Which is probably why Noah got drunk. The wine he was used to probably was nothing like the wine he now had after the flood.

My point: If alcohol never existed, as we now know it, then there would have been no flood. Meaning mankind would have literally destroyed themselves. I think most certainly the few believers left on earth, Noah, would have been eventually killed. My opinion.

But it also begs the question, did man between Adam and Noah learn the method of distilling.

Lees

I read this this morning and I really enjoyed the good laugh. I'm like..."oh my...where does this man get his crazy religious ideas???" I really liked the part about alcohol, somehow diminished in fermentation (due to lack of sun rays, rofl) somehow is also responsible for the flood, thereafter becoming alcoholically stronger! LOL.

I've been making alcohol for nearly 20 years, off and on, and the sun plays absolutely no bearing on alcohol content. In fact, most of the fermentation I do is done in either total or near darkness.

 

[Stravinsk]

What would the world be like if alcohol never existed?

Undoubtedly safer. Oh, I'm sure some other drug would be abused en masse, but as it stands alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs around, either directly (overdose) or indirectly (as a result of poor decisions made because of it).

 

[Lees]

I read this this morning and I really enjoyed the good laugh. I'm like..."oh my...where does this man get his crazy religious ideas???" I really liked the part about alcohol, somehow diminished in fermentation (due to lack of sun rays, rofl) somehow is also responsible for the flood, thereafter becoming alcoholically stronger! LOL.

I've been making alcohol for nearly 20 years, off and on, and the sun plays absolutely no bearing on alcohol content. In fact, most of the fermentation I do is done in either total or near darkness.

I didn't say alcohol is responsible for the flood. Perhaps you were laughing so hard you couldn't pay attention.

My ideas come from the Bible, as I showed. The firmament divided the waters which covered the earth. The upper waters still surrounded the earth. Creating a water vapor canopy around the earth. This would have filtered the suns rays. The earth's temp from Adam to the flood would have been a more consistant one.

As I said, once the canopy above was removed, the sunlight came through unfiltered. And it certainly affected the age of man as his age immediately started diminishing. Whereas people prior to the flood could live up to 1000 years, (Gen. 5:1-32), after the flood that age started dropping. (Gen. 11:10-26)

These ideas don't originate with me..

Noah's Drunkenness

Genesis 9:20-21… Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. &nbs...

www.harvestbiblechurch.net

Lees

 

[psalms 91]

Alot better

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I didn't say alcohol is responsible for the flood. Perhaps you were laughing so hard you couldn't pay attention.

My ideas come from the Bible, as I showed. The firmament divided the waters which covered the earth. The upper waters still surrounded the earth. Creating a water vapor canopy around the earth. This would have filtered the suns rays. The earth's temp from Adam to the flood would have been a more consistant one.

As I said, once the canopy above was removed, the sunlight came through unfiltered. And it certainly affected the age of man as his age immediately started diminishing. Whereas people prior to the flood could live up to 1000 years, (Gen. 5:1-32), after the flood that age started dropping. (Gen. 11:10-26)

These ideas don't originate with me..

Noah's Drunkenness

Genesis 9:20-21… Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. &nbs...

www.harvestbiblechurch.net

Lees

You need some newer creation science books. The canopy theory has been shown to be implausable.

Were “the waters above” a vapour canopy?

Water vapour canopy theory, biblical and scientific problems, greenhouse effect, human lifespans

creation.com

Also, a 15 minute video.

 

[Lees]

You need some newer creation science books. The canopy theory has been shown to be implausable.

Were “the waters above” a vapour canopy?

Water vapour canopy theory, biblical and scientific problems, greenhouse effect, human lifespans

creation.com

Also, a 15 minute video.

Really?

How was it shown to be 'implausable'? Through science or Scripture?

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Really?

How was it shown to be 'implausable'? Through science or Scripture?

Lees

It was ever only a science idea. The article shows how it is implausible scientifically and really does not even fit the Bible narrative.

 

[Lees]

It was ever only a science idea. The article shows how it is implausible scientifically and really does not even fit the Bible narrative.

Science does not dictate what fits the Bible narrative. Science has no way to prove or disprove (Gen. 1:7).

And (Gen. 1:7) is not a science idea. God declares that He divided the waters with a firmament. Some below on earth. Some above the firmament.

Consider these things:

1.) From Adam to the Flood, the climate conditions on the earth were not the same as they are now. The earth did not experience rain. Instead a mist rose up from the earth to water it. (Gen. 2:5-6)

2.) From Adam to the Flood man was still a vegatarian. Before the fall "of every tree" (Gen. 2:16). After the fall "the herb of the field". (Gen. 3:18). After the Flood man began to eat meat as well as the herb of the field. (Gen. 9:3)

3.) From Adam to the Flood man's life span reached almost 1000 years. (Gen. 5:1-32) After the Flood mans life span began to diminish to what we experience to day.

4.) Therefore, the Flood not only killed off every human, save Noah and his family, but it changed the condition of the earth, and man's condition also.

That is the Biblical narrative. Correct?

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Science does not dictate what fits the Bible narrative. Science has no way to prove or disprove (Gen. 1:7).

And (Gen. 1:7) is not a science idea. God declares that He divided the waters with a firmament. Some below on earth. Some above the firmament.

Consider these things:

1.) From Adam to the Flood, the climate conditions on the earth were not the same as they are now. The earth did not experience rain. Instead a mist rose up from the earth to water it. (Gen. 2:5-6)

2.) From Adam to the Flood man was still a vegatarian. Before the fall "of every tree" (Gen. 2:16). After the fall "the herb of the field". (Gen. 3:18). After the Flood man began to eat meat as well as the herb of the field. (Gen. 9:3)

3.) From Adam to the Flood man's life span reached almost 1000 years. (Gen. 5:1-32) After the Flood mans life span began to diminish to what we experience to day.

4.) Therefore, the Flood not only killed off every human, save Noah and his family, but it changed the condition of the earth, and man's condition also.

That is the Biblical narrative. Correct?

Lees

1. We don't know that it did not rain until the flood. We only know that the mist occurred in the Garden. It may be that rain began to occur shortly after the fall.

2. We don't know that man was a vegetarian before the flood. What would have prevented people from eating meat before the flood? God's own people were told after the flood they can eat meat, but sinners existed before the flood and would often do as they pleased.

3. And what would be the reason lifespans tapered off like that? Genetics, lower diversity of foods, climate, . . .

4. True, the flood changed the condition of the earth dramatically. I don't believe the flood changed the condition of man other than it was a genetic bottleneck, so a good amount of genetic information was likely lost. This alone could account for lower lifespans. But a harsher climate following the flood could have also contributed by making it harder to get good food.

 

[Lees]

1. We don't know that it did not rain until the flood. We only know that the mist occurred in the Garden. It may be that rain began to occur shortly after the fall.

2. We don't know that man was a vegetarian before the flood. What would have prevented people from eating meat before the flood? God's own people were told after the flood they can eat meat, but sinners existed before the flood and would often do as they pleased.

3. And what would be the reason lifespans tapered off like that? Genetics, lower diversity of foods, climate, . . .

4. True, the flood changed the condition of the earth dramatically. I don't believe the flood changed the condition of man other than it was a genetic bottleneck, so a good amount of genetic information was likely lost. This alone could account for lower lifespans. But a harsher climate following the flood could have also contributed by making it harder to get good food.

1.) No. The midst watered the whole earth. (Gen. 2:5-6) "God had not caused it to rain upon the earth" "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." The Garden of Eden was later. (Gen. 2:8) The appearance of the rain bow proves there was no rain till after the flood. (Gen. 9:13-16) The rainbow as a token of a promise from God would have no meaning if it existed before.

2.) I just showed you Scriptures that man was a vegatarian as ordered by God. (Gen. 2:16) (Gen. 3:18) And that would not change until after the Flood. (Gen. 9:3) Noah and his family represented all of mankind after the Flood when God changed man's diet. If one would have eaten meat prior to God's changing mans diet, it would have proved harmful to them. Point being, man was a vegatarian from Adam to the Flood because that is what God ordered him to be. But the Flood changed the conditions on the earth, prompting God to change man's diet to include meat also.

3.) The point is that the life spans did decrease after the flood. Yes, climate certainly changed as there was now rain and and also seasons. (Gen. 8:22) The appearance of the rainbow, (Gen. 9:13-16) proves that. In other words, the waters above, the canopy water vapor, were no longer present. Sunlight came directly to the earth unfiltered, also causing the rainbow.

4.) The harsher climate was due to the collapse of the canopy of water above letting the sunlights deadly rays through.

So, you see. The canopy theory is a Biblical one. You don't have to believe it, but science certainly hasn't disproved it. Nor can it. And this provides a reason for Noah's drunkeness as the fermentation process speeded up drastically. Atmospheric conditions were now different.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

....(snip)

3.) The point is that the life spans did decrease after the flood. Yes, climate certainly changed as there was now rain and and also seasons. (Gen. 8:22) The appearance of the rainbow, (Gen. 9:13-16) proves that. In other words, the waters above, the canopy water vapor, were no longer present. Sunlight came directly to the earth unfiltered, also causing the rainbow.

4.) The harsher climate was due to the collapse of the canopy of water above letting the sunlights deadly rays through.

So, you see. The canopy theory is a Biblical one. You don't have to believe it, but science certainly hasn't disproved it. Nor can it. And this provides a reason for Noah's drunkeness as the fermentation process speeded up drastically. Atmospheric conditions were now different.

Lees

Dude....DUDE! Sunlight has NO BEARING on the speed or effectiveness of the fermentation process.

Have you EVER made alcohol? I have been making it for around 20 years. The ONLY relevant factors for fermentation, given the proper ingredients are TEMPERATURE and YEAST CONTENT. Sunlight, Darkness etc play absolutely NO PART in the process or the speed thereof.

I can start a batch and it will take a week to ferment. I can increase the yeast, leaving all factors the same, and it will take 2-3 days. Sometimes I can even decrease this with a slight rise in temp that lets the yeast multiply and pump out alcohol without killing them at higher temps.

You're theory, at least as it relates to alcohol production is easily and scientifically dis-proven. Really has nothing to do with the Sun, or Sunlight. Fermentation effectiveness, strength and speed do not depend on it at all.

 

[Lees]

Dude....DUDE! Sunlight has NO BEARING on the speed or effectiveness of the fermentation process.

Have you EVER made alcohol? I have been making it for around 20 years. The ONLY relevant factors for fermentation, given the proper ingredients are TEMPERATURE and YEAST CONTENT. Sunlight, Darkness etc play absolutely NO PART in the process or the speed thereof.

I can start a batch and it will take a week to ferment. I can increase the yeast, leaving all factors the same, and it will take 2-3 days. Sometimes I can even decrease this with a slight rise in temp that lets the yeast multiply and pump out alcohol without killing them at higher temps.

You're theory, at least as it relates to alcohol production is easily and scientifically dis-proven. Really has nothing to do with the Sun, or Sunlight. Fermentation effectiveness, strength and speed do not depend on it at all.

dude...dude! Sunlight increases temperature. Temperature affects the fermentation process.

In Noah's day prior to the flood, sunlight was filtered through the waters above. Keeping a constant range of temperature. After the flood, the suns rays hit the earth unfiltered, increasing the temperatures. Thus affecting fermentation.

Your science cannot disprove the canopy theory because your science 'assumes' everything is now as it always has been. And it wasn't. And science can't go back to test one way or another.

dude...dude!

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

dude...dude! Sunlight increases temperature. Temperature affects the fermentation process.

In Noah's day prior to the flood, sunlight was filtered through the waters above. Keeping a constant range of temperature. After the flood, the suns rays hit the earth unfiltered, increasing the temperatures. Thus affecting fermentation.

Your science cannot disprove the canopy theory because your science 'assumes' everything is now as it always has been. And it wasn't. And science can't go back to test one way or another.

dude...dude!

Lees

This is not about proving or disproving "canopy theory" - it's about alcohol, and your lame attempts to tie it to canopy theory. Look, dude, I don't believe in the canopy theory but this isn't the issue here. You probably have 0 idea that different yeasts ferment at different temperatures. Ale yeasts can ferment well at high temps, and lager yeasts can ferment well at low temps. Do you even have any idea what these temperatures are? Or do you just assume that pre-flood everyone lived in a super cold climate that somehow allowed all the regular crops to grow? LOL.

Even at slow or fast temperature fermentation rates, the alcohol content remains roughly the same. Noah didn't get drunk by accident, lol. He'd be aware, just as any person would, that something about his wine was "off", but he kept drinking it anyway until he got smashed.

Fundies with strange ideas. So much fun.

 

[Lees]

This is not about proving or disproving "canopy theory" - it's about alcohol, and your lame attempts to tie it to canopy theory. Look, dude, I don't believe in the canopy theory but this isn't the issue here. You probably have 0 idea that different yeasts ferment at different temperatures. Ale yeasts can ferment well at high temps, and lager yeasts can ferment well at low temps. Do you even have any idea what these temperatures are? Or do you just assume that pre-flood everyone lived in a super cold climate that somehow allowed all the regular crops to grow? LOL.

Even at slow or fast temperature fermentation rates, the alcohol content remains roughly the same. Noah didn't get drunk by accident, lol. He'd be aware, just as any person would, that something about his wine was "off", but he kept drinking it anyway until he got smashed.

Fundies with strange ideas. So much fun.

The Real Difference Between Cool-Climate and Warm-Climate Wine

A lot goes into making the wines you love, but one of the most important aspects is out of the winemaker's control: climate. Learn the differences between warm-climate and cool-climate wines before you pick your next bottle.

www.winemag.com

Note this statement under sub-topic 'SO ARE WARM CLIMATE WINES BETTER'

"More sunshine, consistant weather, and a longer fall ripening period produces wines that possess fuller body and flavors. Grapes ripen faster and accumulate more sugars, which result in higher alcohol levels during feermentation."

Also, go to post #(7) and read the link I provided there.

The canopy theory is the issue because the water canopy above filtered the suns rays to the earth. Which in turn affected the fermentation of grapes which in turn affected the alcohol level.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

The Real Difference Between Cool-Climate and Warm-Climate Wine

A lot goes into making the wines you love, but one of the most important aspects is out of the winemaker's control: climate. Learn the differences between warm-climate and cool-climate wines before you pick your next bottle.

www.winemag.com

Note this statement under sub-topic 'SO ARE WARM CLIMATE WINES BETTER'

"More sunshine, consistant weather, and a longer fall ripening period produces wines that possess fuller body and flavors. Grapes ripen faster and accumulate more sugars, which result in higher alcohol levels during feermentation."

Also, go to post #(7) and read the link I provided there.

The canopy theory is the issue because the water canopy above filtered the suns rays to the earth. Which in turn affected the fermentation of grapes which in turn affected the alcohol level.

Lees

Oh Lees...fundie without a clue.

The "canopy theory" you believe in is debunked by Psalms 148:4 - "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens."

The Psalms were written long after the flood.

But all in all - it is amusing to see you futilely defend the canopy theory and tie it to alcohol strength and purpose. It is a fine example of the extreme reaching a confused and misinformed fundie must do to defend their positions. I pity your mind.

 

[Lees]

Oh Lees...fundie without a clue.

The "canopy theory" you believe in is debunked by Psalms 148:4 - "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens."

The Psalms were written long after the flood.

But all in all - it is amusing to see you futilely defend the canopy theory and tie it to alcohol strength and purpose. It is a fine example of the extreme reaching a confused and misinformed fundie must do to defend their positions. I pity your mind.

Not so fast. There are different heavens spoken of in the Bible. These waters in (Ps. 148:4) appear to be above the highest heavens the abode of God.

The waters that would have made up the canopy in (Gen. 1:7-8) would have been lower.

Lees