|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Noahs ark is a physical impossibility | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I'm afraid it is. And you prove me right by trying to support that first clause. Lets see what you have to say about that, eh?
quote: I haven't seen a good example of this yet, but you are welcome to take a shot.
quote: Archeaology hardly paints the picture presented in the Bible. There are overlaps but the tales are not the same. The Bible slants the truth towards the people who wrote it, just like all similar cultural epics. And... evidence for supernatural events? Are you serious?
quote: None of which, I am sad to say (truly), has any real evidence behind it.
quote: "Might" is a very big word. Pretty much anything might be true. That doesn't get you a hair closer to finding out what actually is true. You didn't answer the question. So must I believe EVERYTHING on the grounds that it MIGHT be true, or believe what I can reasonably infer to be true?
quote: Yes. I assume it was constucted as per the dimensions in the Bible and I assume the animals were... well, animals and were of normal size, shape, density, etc. That is, I haven't added to or subtracted from what actually appears in the good book. You however have added at least one bit-- that the animals hibernated. It seems reasonable that this would have been mentioned. Perhaps you would also like to endow the ark with TARDIS-like spacial properties as well?
quote: Frankly, credible folk throughout the ages can be shown to have believed utter crap, so this appeal to public opinion falls rather flat. Maybe that is why it is considered a fallacy of informal logic?
quote: Someone is pulling the wool over you eyes. Even ChristianAnswers.net has the sense to not bet on this one.
[qs]Dozens of expeditions to the Ararat region of eastern Turkey, mostly by American Christian groups, have led to numerous claims - but no proof.
Has anyone discovered Noah's Ark? - ChristianAnswers.Net quote: The evidence just isn't there. Unless, of course, evidence of a regional flood 1500 years prior to the creation of the planet counts as evidence, as you appear to think that it does. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Um, except that dinosaurs aren't belly-crawlers.
quote: 1) No you don't, and 2) Where is the physical evidence which would lead you to this conclusion?
quote: Correct, although you would be more accurate to call them Diapsids, which include dinosaurs, reptiles, and birds.
quote: Well, not if you consider the distinct probability that modern birds are evolved dinosaurs.
quote: Huh? It's estimated that over 90% of the species which have ever existed have gone exitnct. Millions and millions of species have gone extinct since life began.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Nancy and Ronald Reagan had an official astrologer, as have many members of the British royal family. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle belived in existence of fairies. Dan Quayle thought that there are canals on Mars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Right.
Newton was an alchemist... Aristotle believed all manner of odd things about animal life... the list goes on... ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
quote:Interesting. So then, you recognize that color data transmission and space travel aren't in fact supernatural? And that if you had thought that at the time, you would have been wrong? And if you had known what you know now (that space travel is a natural phenomenon) and had seen others in error, you might have labored to help them overcome their ignorance? Then perhaps you might understand why us evolutionists come to boards like this to challenge preconceptions that smack of superstitious dogma rather than evidence-supported, naturalist theories. Certainly much about the world around us was thought to be supernatural. That doesn't mean it is. That doesn't even mean that if we can't explain it, it must be supernatural. The history of science implies the opposite. Ok, sorry, off-topic. Just thought I'd respond. Here's a question for the Arkists: Assuming you're right about only needing two of every "kind" (whatever a kind is) instead of two of every species, how many kinds is that? And from those kinds, how can we get as many species as we see today without assuming rates of speciation that even an evolutionary biologist would be hard-pressed to accept? It's a "dammed if you do, dammned if you don't" situation - if you have few enough "kinds" to fit in a boat of any possible size then you don't have enough individuals to lead to the number of species we have today. If you assume enough "kinds" for a more reasonable rate of speciation then the boat has to be of impossible size. ------------------Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Someone once said (was it Arthur C. Clarke?) that sufficiently advanced science would be indistinguishable from magic. An obvious corollary is that the less one knows about science the more likely something is going to seem like magic.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jesuslover153 Inactive Member |
I have to wonder how many animals were on board and what the food amount would be.. these are my loose calculations...
there are about 18,000 land species of animals.. this includes birds, amphibians and mammals, lets say that 50% of these are clean and 50% unclean 9,000 x 7 for the clean animals= 63,000 9,000 x 2 for the unclean animals= 18,000 = 91,000 How many of the unclean animals could survive off eating the dung of the clean animals, (which cities in the states and canada save millions by feeding there sewage to pigs?)... that takes care of the hugest brunt of the dung... we are also dealing with genetically superior beings, not just the humans being supperior but also the animals and the food, they would metabolise better than what we do today, most likely there was alot of sleeping going on here, so in a state of rest they most likely would not have needed to eat as much as if they were active. Noah did bring food aboard the ship so I would assume that there was enough to feed the creatures through the whole time of there stay, and again the unclean 18,000 animals would have eaten the dung of the clean, so that leaves only 63,000 clean animals to feed... My question is how do we figure out the superior levels of genetics that are taking place at this time... and I wonder if there was any fasting taking place throughout the 371 days they were on board the ship...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think it's species-ism of the worst kind to assume that the ark contained only land vertabrates. As others have addressed, you're going to need aquariums for all "kinds" of fish, as well - the flood waters are going to be too salty for freshwater fish but too fresh for saltwater fish.
Not to mention the insects, which constitute the bulk of Earth's species. If you honestly believe that you could go from two members of a "kind" to the variety of species we see, consider the beetles. The ark story demands that, from a pair of beetles, we would get the 400,000 known species of beetles we see today, within a time frame of 4500 years. That's around 100 species a year - a rate that, if true, we could easily see today. You'd have to accept irrational levels of evolution to accept any practical (in terms of shipbuilding) model of the ark story. I don't see how such a story could be accepted by creationists, given their stance on speciation, etc. But I guess if you demand an inerrant Bible that's the kind of contradiction you have to accept... Oh, and consider that "genetic superiority" must be taken in context of environment. So an animal that was adapted to boat travel (i.e. being stationary for a long, long time, eating hardly at all, not coming into heat, etc.) would be genetically superior for that one year, but as soon as it stepped onto dry land it would be massively misadapted to the new environment and therefore unable to propagate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jesuslover153 Inactive Member |
When you take into account the decree of God stating that mans years would only be 120 years in Genesis 6, and when you do the math of the numbers there it took 1000 years for this decree to come in force...
God used the environment to effect us, and as is observable environment does effect us in way of our health and not only ours but our offspring. And for the fish I will give you the genetically superior.. My question to you is where than would all the salt come from to make the water to salty? With the amount of water that would be upon the earth in that time I am sure the amount of salt would be pretty well on scale. And I think that going from 2 or 7 of each species to make all the species on earth now is a far lesser cry than all of this coming from a single ameoba in the primordial soup...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: You missread me. My statement implied that the offspring of the leggy dinosaurs were born as modern style belly crawling reptiles, and it was these which were taken into the ark. So all the remaining dinosaurs died in the flood. This made them extinct. Many breeds of species have become extinct, but the dinosaurs all became extinct at the time of the flood. I've said all that to say there were no dinosaurs in the ark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
jesuslover153 writes: When you take into account the decree of God stating that mans years would only be 120 years in Genesis 6, and when you do the math of the numbers there it took 1000 years for this decree to come in force... I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that the 4500 years (calculated from lineages after Noah, I assume - I'm no Biblical scholar) might in fact represent a lot more time? Could be, I guess, but we're talking time multiplication of a factor of a thousand or more to have enough time for all the "kinds" on the ark to sufficiently speciate at the rate we observe speciation today.
My question to you is where than would all the salt come from to make the water to salty?
It's in the ocean. If the hypothetical floodwaters rose high enough to "cover the Earth", then surely they would mix with the ocean. Considering that the ocean (at least these days) is far deeper than the height of any mountain, I think it's safe to assume that oceanic water would constitute a sizable majority of flood waters. Saltwater ocean life in general has a low tolernace for changes in salinity. Coral, for instance, would be killed simply by the change in depth from the flood. That would more or less kill the planet's ecosystem, because the coral reef zones are the major source of oxygen (through the action of phytoplankton). Unless Noah takes some coral (unlikely, because coral is difficult to transport alive even with our technology), the flood kills the planet. And it would take a million years to generate full-fledged coral ecosystems from a founding population. Now, if you postulate that the oceans were a lot smaller before the flood, you're still faced with an ocean ecology that couldn't survive the transition to larger, saltier oceans.
And I think that going from 2 or 7 of each species to make all the species on earth now is a far lesser cry than all of this coming from a single ameoba in the primordial soup... Only if you ignore the time scale. You're talking about some 2 - 100 million current species from about a hundred or a thousand "kinds" (whatever a kind is) in a space of less than 5000 years. That's at least 400 new and very different species every year. And that's a pretty conservative estimate. That would be something so noteworthy it would have been recorded by every civilization, including the writers of the Bible. As well as something we would see today. On the other hand, all those species over one billion years of evolution? Only 1 new species every 10 years. Obviously it doesn't work out that evenly, but it's a much more reasonable model. Obviously the ark scenario would be a bottleneck event of cosiderable damage and magnatude. It's doubtful that the Earth's ecosystems would survive. Noah and his animals would perish of asphixiation and starvation after they got off the ark, assuming they survived the trip (which as others have made the point, would be impossible.) ------------------Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
peanutbean6111 Inactive Member |
DAVID UNFAMOUS SAID:
As for the flood, I still haven't heard any reason why an all-powerful God who allegedly created the Universe needed to use rainfall to wipe out his disobedient children instead of just snapping his fingers and making them all disappear, save Noah. Couldn't this all have been done in an instant? WHAT I SAY:If he performed the snapping the fingers act, there wouldn't be any scientific evidence left for "creationsists" to prove their case. God thought about this ahead of time, because he knew people would question things such as this. At least a global flood can be scientifically proven as correct or incorrect because of fossil remains, coal deposits, etc. If God were to just snap his fingers, there would be absolutely no evidence to back up the claims of the Bible and many people would not believe this truth. Thank you for your time and if you have any further questions, just email me. Christ lives!Brianna
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If God were to just snap his fingers, there would be absolutely no evidence to back up the claims of the Bible and many people would not believe this truth. So, instead, what we have is evidence AGAINST the flood story, leaving many people to reject the literal truth of the bible? Why is that better? Better that the flood story was never in the bible, because it's pretty clear that it didn't happen that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If God used a flood so it would leave evidence then what happened to the evidence ? If God's intent was as you say than God failed, miserably. So your explanation cannot be correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
OK, I get that I misread you about what went extinct, etc. However, you did not address the following:
quote: 1) No you don't, and 2) Where is the physical evidence which would lead you to this conclusion?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024