Noah's Ark found?

[kerikiwi]

Yes to both. The intention was to describe real events.

Do you believe that the events intended to be understood as real events were, in fact, real events?

 

[dio]

And do you disagree with C.S Lewis and say that the intention of the temptation story was to portray real events?

And if so, do you believe that the intention of Genesis 1 was to accurately describe the creation of the world?

Yes to both. The intention was to describe real events.

Nice.

AGAIN!

Sir! I took biology classes in college and read biology textbooks sall the time. They are poart of my personal library. So your typical assumption that people who don't accept your fish ancestor as true is totally unfounded. Actually it constitutes fallacious reasoning. Hasty conclusion based on insufficient evidence motivated by prejudice.

BTW
I don't like to be wrongfully accused or falsly described or categorized by people who are more than likely less educated than me and don't even know how to reason properly.

Going past the fact that the first highlighted sentence doesn't make sense, I have a question.

How do you YECs "reason properly" the recurrent laryngeal nerve again? (It makes perfect sense if we descended from some sort of fish.)

Did your perfect creator screw up, just a bit (in all mammals)?
Or did he do it on purpose, so it just looks like we are descended from fish?

 

[skeptiform5]

Some thing I find strange is that the news paper article never mentions how it was big enough to fit over one hundred million species into one ark. I thought that would be one of the key facts behing this theory. Also if it was so big how come people only found out about it recently? Very confusing.......

 

[dafydd]

Some thing I find strange is that the news paper article never mentions how it was big enough to fit over one hundred million species into one ark. I thought that would be one of the key facts behing this theory. Also if it was so big how come people only found out about it recently? Very confusing.......

Don't worry,it's just an old story with no basis in reality.Not worth discussing.

 

[Robin]

Yes to both. The intention was to describe real events.

Thanks for the straightforward answers.

 

[devnull]

Dear Radrook,

Earlier in this conversation you suggested that post-flood there was some sort of super-accelerated evolution to allow animals to adapt to whatever environments they ended up in and stuff. You said this was intended as a scientific theory and was not supposing a miracle.

I asked why, if this was the case, we don't see evolution working that fast now. Rather than answer, you made an unrelated criticism of modern evolutionary theory.

I pointed out that the validity of that has no relation to the validity of YOUR theory and asked again. You replied with the same unrelated comments.

I asked a third time, and you just never answered.

At this point I'm not expecting you to answer this fairly simple question about why your proposed theory doesn't match observed reality but I just wanted to point out that you seem to be interested in dodging the question rather than either answering it or admitting that you are wrong.

Hugs and kisses,
SOdhner

He didnt reply again? I, for one, am *shocked*

 

[AdinDraco]

Found this while wandering randomly around Youtube today - apologies if already posted or not really on topic...

 

[Marduk]

The Hebrew word used in that passage can also refer to a sphere.

wait, I was informed earlier that the Hebrews had no word for sphere

The Hebrew language had no word for sphere.

see, so one of the above two posters is completely wrong

which one is it though




Thanks, I'm here all week

 

[Ladewig]

Some thing I find strange is that the news paper article never mentions how it was big enough to fit over one hundred million species into one ark. I thought that would be one of the key facts behing this theory. Also if it was so big how come people only found out about it recently? Very confusing.......

You must have skipped a few pages. The literalists in this forum have explained that Noah took a pair of each kind, not a pair of each species. There was no need to take a tiger, a lion, a jaguar, a cougar, a lynx, and a cheetah. Any one of them would do because all speciation occurred in the few thousand years since the flood.

 

[Marduk]

You must have skipped a few pages. The literalists in this forum have explain that Noah took a pair of each kind, not a pair of each species. There was no need to take a tiger, a lion, a jaguar, a cougar, a lynx, and a cheetah. Any one of them would do because all speciation occurred in the few thousand years since the flood.

Ok, so what two types of great whale did he take ?

 

[devnull]

Does anyone else here sometimes stop and think "it's the 21st century, and adults are discussing whether the magic sky man flooded the world"?

Sometimes the world is just awe inspiring.

 

[Complexity]

Does anyone else here sometimes stop and think "it's the 21st century, and adults are discussing whether the magic sky man flooded the world"?

Sometimes the world is just awe inspiring.

Insane, aren't they?

The world is just awe inspiring.

What a pity the bleevers can't shut their yaps and open their minds long enough to take it all in.

 

[dafydd]

Does anyone else here sometimes stop and think "it's the 21st century, and adults are discussing whether the magic sky man flooded the world"?

Sometimes the world is just awe inspiring.

Hear hear.

 

[SOdhner]

He didnt reply again? I, for one, am *shocked*

I know! It's almost like Radrook has absolutely no answer and no way to back up the things that he says in even the most basic way... but I'm sure that can't be it.

 

[tsig]

Ok, so what two types of great whale did he take ?

^{The tiny kind}

 

[JPK]

Good morning.
I remember seeing Michael Shermer on B***S*** making a very good point about how people who try to take the Noah story as an actual historical event are sadly depriving themselves by missing the point of the story.

 

[Skwinty]

^{The tiny kind}

They were actually very large and used as propulsion units. They did not need to be "inboard" propulsion units.

The could also be used as bow thrusters for docking on Mt Ararat

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Good morning.
I remember seeing Michael Shermer on B***S*** making a very good point about how people who try to take the Noah story as an actual historical event are sadly depriving themselves by missing the point of the story.

Though I am no longer Catholic and have many problems with the church, I greatly appreciate the fact that they are no longer biblical literalists (though there are some hold outs within the church). I was taught evolution in Catholic school. When I was a catechism teacher in the deep south, we always taught the kids that the point of the stories were the meaning, it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. And that was in our Church distributed teaching manuals.

 

[Vortigern99]

From the NCSE article ( http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark#Accommodating All Those Animals ) :

From this we can see that the original canine baramin in Eden would have needed a fantastic set of giant chromosomes with alleles for every trait that would someday be manifest in coyotes, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingos, fennecs, and the myriad of minute variations in hair color (twenty-four genes at nine loci), height, face shape, and so forth that are seen in the domestic dog (cf. Hutt). So, too, for the feline kind, within which creationists Byron Nelson (p. 157) and Alfred Rehwinkel (p. 70) both place lions, tigers, leopards, and ocelots as well as housecats. Similar giant chromosomes would be required for the bovine kind, equine kind, and so on.

In the centuries before the deluge, these strange progenitors must have rapidly diversified into their potential species, as the fossil record shows. The equine kind developed not only zebras, horses, onagers, asses, and quaggas but Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merychippus, and other now-extinct species that paleontologists have misinterpreted as evidence for evolution. (Remember that creationists hold that the flood is responsible for the burial of most, if not all, fossil species. Therefore they had to already exist prior to the deluge.)

Then one day, many centuries later, the Lord told Noah to take two canines, two felines, two equines, two pinnipedians—one male and one female each—and put them aboard the ark. The trick is, which does our ancient zoologist choose? A male kit fox and a female Great Dane? A female lion and a male alley cat? An Eohippus and a Clydesdale? Which two individuals would possess the tremendous genetic complement that their ancestors in Eden had, to enable the many species to reappear after the flood? How could Noah tell? Creationist Dennis Wagner tells us that the original kinds degenerated through inbreeding so that their offspring would "never again reach the hereditary variability of the parent" (quoted in Awbrey; my emphasis). Yet the unique couple aboard the ark needed the full genetic potential of the original kind, if not more, for a vast new array of climatic and geographic niches was opened up by the flood.

Speaking of a hypothetical group of six or eight animals stranded on an island, King says, "Such a small number could not possibly reflect the actual allelic frequencies found in the large mainland population" (p. 107). What, then, of the single pair on the ark?

...

The theory of kinds is incoherent and confusing. Since it runs counter to all the known facts of genetics and taxonomy, the burden of proof is upon the creationists to verify it. Where are the fossil baramins? What findings show that such ideal creatures ever existed? If complete sets of kind alleles could survive twenty-four hundred or more years of radiation before the flood, it should be possible to find specimens today with inexplicably large chromosomal complements, perhaps in undiversified families. Unfortunately for "baramin geneticists," studies have been done on such families (cf. Loughman, Frye, and Herald), and nothing extraordinary has been discovered. Still no experiments are forthcoming from the ICR to test its hypothesis. It is, in fact, "armchair science" without a shred of evidence, and we are justified in rejecting it entirely and assuming that "two of every sort" means two of every species.​

 

[Radrook]

Some thing I find strange is that the news paper article never mentions how it was big enough to fit over one hundred million species into one ark. I thought that would be one of the key facts behing this theory. Also if it was so big how come people only found out about it recently? Very confusing.......

The basic kinds are not thought to have numbered into millions of species.