• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noah's Ark found?

Meadmaker said:
By the way. The article that 154 linked to alleged that the atomic clocks in Greenwich and Boulder run at different rates due to their different elevations. (It says that gravity makes the difference.) That's wrong, isn't it? They aren't moving with respect to each other, so they ought to keep the same time, correct?
Click to expand...

No, its right, because you get time dilation from being in a gravitational field as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation:
Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential (closer to the center of a massive object), the more slowly clocks run. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.
Click to expand...
 
Radrook said:
If I were required to fill such an ark with animals I would choose baby animals in order to conserve space.
Click to expand...

Babies or adults, it really doesn't matter. You can't fix the climate, diet, sanitation, and living conditions in such a way that the animals survive. You need further miraculous intervention to make the whole thing work.

The ark, despite its size, was neither necessary nor sufficient to save those animals. It wasn't sufficient because even if you could fit the animals, you couldn't provide the necessary living conditions to keep them alive. You would need God to sustain them through divine intervention, boat or no boat. It wasn't necessary, because God doesn't need a boat in order to keep the animals alive.

Well then, God is just doing things in his own weird way, I guess. I can't see the purpose, though. If you could allow a tiny bit of non-literalism to creep in I might suggest the following. God decides to kill everyone on Earth except for Noah and his family. Of course, he can snap his omnipotent fingers and make it happen with no problem, but he decides he wants to make an impression on Noah and his descendants, so instead of having some sort of instantaneous out of the blue miracle where one day they wake up and everyone else is gone, rapture like, he decides on a little bit of theater. He tells Noah he will destroy the world, and that Noah should get his family and every animal he knows about and put them on a boat because the storm is a-coming.

When the rains come, Noah has everything he needs, and is awestruck by God's majesty, all the more so because it is in a familiar, but magnified, form. As far as Noah knows, the whole world is covered, and maybe it is. Afterwards, Noah gets out of the boat, and God gets to work repopulating the world with animal species. Oh, yeah, the ark dwellers get let out and start breeding, too, but the rest of the world is newly made animal flesh that was never on the ark.

After all, the Bible doesn't say that God never made another new species or individual after the flood. It doesn't actually say that every living thing on Earth is descended from some animal on the ark. After all, the plants weren't on the ark, and a lot of them would have vanished in a worldwide flood.

However, God gets a bonus by doing it this way. Every time it rains, and every time there's a rainbow, people are reminded of the wrath of God, and how they really need to keep in line to avoid being destroyed. Had he made his supernatural tricks less imitative of regular nature, people might get the idea that rain happened just because of some sort of evaporation and condensation cycle, and that God's intervention only comes in the form of abracadabra style magic.

Surely this explanation is a lot more plausible than wandering the world looking for baby animals to put on a boat, even with hypermicroevolution to help out in the repopulation.
 
Vortigern99 said:
http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark#Accommodating All Those Animals

Limiting the cargo to "kinds."

Genetic problems.
Without going into the details of genetics, it can be stated that every inherited trait, however small, is coded for by one or more genes, and each gene locus may have a substantial number of variants (alleles), which accounts for the great variety observed in a given population. Any specific individual, however, has at most only two alleles per locus—one from each parent. [snip supporting quote by James C. King]

Hence, for a trait such as human pigmentation, "we can visualize not merely a few dozen interacting loci but an array of perhaps a dozen or so alleles at each locus" (p. 60).

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...). 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.
​
etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...

There are creationists, who don't hold the views you say all creationists hold. For example, there are creationists who accept that many species had been permitted to go extinct before the animals which were to coexist with man were on the scene. This would allow for fossils to be present before the flood. Also, this allows for the basi Edenic kinds not to need to account for the diversification of all previous animals.

BTW
The Great Dane is a consequence of man's tampering with canine genetics as are all varieties of the dogs derived from wolves. The felines such as alley cats which are escaped domesticated cats also were tampered with in order to produce the great varieties cats in existence today. Same with the Clydesdale horse, quarter horse, Arabian horse, and mules. They weren't contemporaries of eohohipus. Some we created for war, and others for transportation and work purposes. So the choices facing our zoologist weren't as bewildering as some might imagine. Also, the Genesis account tells us the seven pairs of certain animals were to be gathered. So the genetics were not all restricted to what two of each could contribute. Additionally,I just read that the idea that eohippus is an ancestor of the horse has already been discarded.
 
Last edited:
Madouc said:
The Chinese team are hosting a talk in Hong Kong: http://www.hkticketing.com/Ticketek...922&Title=Uncovering The Legendary Noah’s Ark

Highlights will include:

‧ Unexplainable circular room
‧ Mysterious strong wood structure below tons of ice blocks
‧ Peculiar ancient tenon and nailless design
‧ Secret large and small doors
‧ Bizarre wooden staircase

Are archaeological finds usually described in such gosh darn "mysterious", "peculiar" and "bizarre" terms? What was so secret about the doors?

They will also talk about their amazing adventure, including:
．Astonishing prayer picture before they started
．Sudden consciousness after black out at great height
．Miracle of crossing a sheer volcano slope
．Cancer cells passing over the entire body
．Power of prayer that exposes the door in heaven
．Unusual rainbow surrounding the sun
．Angel from God leading all the way up the hill

I guess I am in a position to actually check this out, but the stupid may hurt and I would have to fork out money.
Click to expand...

If I'm in town - I will be there. I almost missed this, as this thread had degenerated into True Believer Vs The World.

Thanks.
 
Foolmewunz said:
If I'm in town - I will be there. I almost missed this, as this thread had degenerated into True Believer Vs The World.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

On second thought....

No filming, no tape recording. Probably no question and answer session. It says at the bottom of the ticket site that it's a two hour evangelical presentation.

I think I'll try to crash some of the promotional events if they stage any. The presentation itself looks like it'll be locked up tight and just be their little dog-and-pony show.
 
Radrook said:
There are creationists, who don't hold the views you say all creationists hold. For example, there are creationists who accept that many species had been permitted to go extinct before the animals which were to coexist with man were on the scene. This would allow for fossils to be present before the flood. Also, this allows for the basi Edenic kinds not to need to account for the diversification of all previous animals.
Click to expand...

I say and said no such thing. I was careful to distinguish "young earth adherents" from the larger group of creationists. Your failure to notice this distinction does not impugn my credibility nor cast doubt upon my assertions.

Also, your above post has no bearing on the questions raised by the NCSE regarding the genetic and taxonomic problems with the invented term "kinds". Can we safely conclude that you concede those points, since you neglect to address them?

Radrook said:
BTW
The Great Dane is a consequence of man's tampering with canine genetics as are all varieties of the dogs derived from wolves. The felines such as alley cats which are escaped domesticated cats also were tampered with in order to produce the great varieties cats in existence today. Same with the Clydesdale horse, quarter horse, Arabian horse, and mules. They weren't contemporaries of eohohipus. Some we created for war, and others for transportation and work purposes. So the choices facing our zoologist weren't as bewildering as some might imagine. Also, the Genesis account tells us the seven pairs of certain animals were to be gathered. So the genetics were not all restricted to what two of each could contribute. Additionally,I just read that the idea that eohippus is an ancestor of the horse has already been discarded.
Click to expand...

What is the point of this irrelevant screed? Where and how does any of this address the central problem that every single so-called kind or baramin "would have needed a fantastic set of giant chromosomes with alleles for every trait that would someday be manifest in" all of the many related species, genera, and/or families? Keeping in mind, of course, that this is a biological impossibility? Or is the response once again, simply "miracle"?

If so, why bother with a boat? Why bother horrifically drowning thousands of innocent babies and their evil, sinner parents? Why not just wink everyone out of existence, except of course for Noah and his do-gooder family? -- all of whom, by some cosmic coincidence, are sweet and just and kind, and related by blood or marriage to the Prophet, while every other living human being in the world is evil beyond reclamation.

At any rate, the specific phylogeny of the horse is not at issue here. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this debate, whether Eohippus was ancestral to the modern horse. Whatever horse "kind" was supposedly on the Ark, it would have required massive chromosomes that would not have realistically fit inside the cells of its body, by dint of the gene loci being overloaded with alleles accounting for every possible variation in all of its offspring, which would have gone on to become zebras, horses, onagers, donkeys, quaggas, etc. The theory of kinds is incoherent and contradictory to all known facts of genetics and taxonomy. There are no fossil baramins, no ideal creatures, no specimens with inexplicably large chromosomal complements. It's all hogwash and flim-flam, friend.
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
.... <snip>...except of course for Noah and his do-gooder family? -- all of whom, by some cosmic coincidence, are sweet and just and kind, and related by blood or marriage to the Prophet, while every other living human being in the world is evil beyond reclamation.
<snip>
Click to expand...

That's the thing with the OT. You know how we treat teacher's pets? Well, can you imagine how insufferable the Noahs and/or the Moses must've been.
Average Wife: "Well, my Aaron just got two goats for a really good price over in BethRuthistan, what's your hunk been up to?"
Mrs. Moses: "Oh, talking to God and getting the laws for our people for all times!"
Smack! Hit her with a casaba melon!
 
Radrook said:
Just as humans are believed to have been closer to perfection and possessing greater vigor which permitted lifespans unheard of now, so also animals could have been closer to their perfect design. So the weaknesses of juvenile animals might not have been as prominent then. That's one explanation that those who adhere to the account as literal would provide or could provide.
Click to expand...

That's not an explanation, it's sheer speculation.
 
Belz... said:
That's not an explanation, it's sheer speculation.
Click to expand...

That's an overly generous description.

Even extra-vigorous animals couldn't survive under ark conditions, and subsequent repopulation, without divine intervention to keep them alive, and I would think that literalists would acknowledge that.
 
Again, the biblical flood is nothing but an infantile myth.
I challenge the believers here to really reexamine what it is they believe about it, all the cruelty of drowning untold numbers of children and animals, all the convolutions of reality that are needed to make it plausible, what do you really believe and why?
 
If radrook has a problem with the analysis that has been provided, particularly with that of the NCSE, then that is actually a problem with _creationists_, not the people in this thread, because all of those points are made in direct response to specific creationist claims.

If Radrook disagrees with creationists, then good for Radrook. And in that case, I welcome Radrook's participation in fighting the onslaught of creationist attempts to impose their beliefs on everyone.

I always love the "they only needed to bring "kinds" on board" claim. Because if you look at the groupings that are made, you realize that the same people who claim that evolution "has never been observed" and is impossible on terrestrial time scales are requiring that post-flood evolution occur at a rate far, far, far faster than any biologist would ever dream of suggesting.

"What? You go from protocat to lions, tigers, and the domestic housecat in, what, 2000 years?"

(remember, Christians were being fed to the lions in the first centuries AD, and Egypytians were worshiping house cats long before that (I can't imagine that they think the pyramids were pre-flood and survived, can they?))

If lions, tigers, and housecats are not all the same "kind," then the term really has no meaning, does it? Is there a "big cat" kind and a "small cat" kind? You can't separate domestic from non-domestic, because the bobcat is nowhere close to a lion or tiger. How many "kinds" of cats are there?

Next topic: rodents. How many kinds of rodents are there? Are bats a separate kind from mice?
 
pgwenthold said:
(I can't imagine that they think the pyramids were pre-flood and survived, can they?))
Click to expand...

Yes they can, if they claim that God built it.
:D

A monument of stone that would endure any test of time, elements, man's intervention or even a great flood.

An axonometric view of the Great Pyramid would reveal several features which include; an entrance, descending corridor, underground chamber, service corridor, ascending corridor, queen's room, air shaft, great gallery, antichamber, king's chamber, and the weight relief chamber. Each of these components run various lengths. Utilizing our principle of 1" representing 1 year we come up with some interesting dates in history. For example, the scriptures indicate, through prophetic passages, that Christ as our High Priest entered the Most Holy of the Heavenly Sanctuary in 1844.

Perhaps simply by coincidence this is the measurement of the great gallery. That would take the beginning of the great gallery back to 0. From that entrance back to the point where the descending and ascending corridors intersect is 1485". This could possibly correspond with the incident of the ten plagues in Egypt and the Exodus of Israel. This was indeed a time of making decisions and eventually a couple of million were allowed to leave. Traveling back up to the entrance is 1170" and would bring us to the year 2,654 B.C.
Click to expand...
http://anchorstone.com/pyramids/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=231&Itemid=74

I've seen them quote evidence such as sea shell fossils embedded in the pyramid blocks which prove that water once covered the GP, never mind that the fossils are found in limestone that was originally laid down millions of years ago as an ocean floor, that can't be true, obviously because theres no such thing as millions of years ago to a YEC.
:p
 
Last edited:
So the tombs were all water tight? Where is all the water damage?

I say, I gotta love this, though. Apparently, the same flood that was able to lay miles of sedimentary rock and cut the Grand Canyon a mile deep did not destroy the pyramids? What, did they have wheels made of iron or something?
 
Radrook said:
Those who try to explain this phenomenon via natural terms say it was speciation.
Click to expand...

"Those" in this case being you. Why do you keep trying to distance yourself from your own claims? You go to great lengths to be vague and say "some people" when it's something you've clearly been arguing for. The only coclusion I can reach is that you don't believe it yourself, which means we agree. Hooray!

Radrook said:
Can you please provide documentation in support of your claim that the time you mention is insufficient?
Click to expand...

That's the status quo. The burden of proof is on you. That being said, if you were correct on this it would be clearly evident everywhere all the time, so in this case an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You are wrong because if you were right there would be clear proof.

Radrook said:
What is my position?
Click to expand...

Okay, I was right before. He's a troll. Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along.

154 said:
"Then the LORD said to Noah, 'Come into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth."
Click to expand...

And another one! Rather than responding to any of the factual arguments 154 has posted a random quote that does absolutely nothing to address any of the issues being discussed. I'll say again that this kind of deliberate avoidance simply can't be an accident and they must therefore know that they are wrong - what we have here are some very clever and dedicated trolls. In a way, I'm impressed. I can't say that I approve of trolling, but I also won't deny that I have some admiration when it's done so well.

I'm going to stop feeding the trolls now.
 
SOdhner said:
Okay, I was right before. He's a troll. Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along.
...


And another one! ....

I'm going to stop feeding the trolls now.
Click to expand...

Two trolls? Are they of the same kind so that they can be a pair, or do we need another two to keep them alive upon the face of all the earth?
Can they survive on the ark if you don't feed them?
 
kerikiwi said:
Two trolls? Are they of the same kind so that they can be a pair, or do we need another two to keep them alive upon the face of all the earth?
Can they survive on the ark if you don't feed them?
Click to expand...

They certainly create a lot of waste...
 
kerikiwi said:
Two trolls? Are they of the same kind so that they can be a pair, or do we need another two to keep them alive upon the face of all the earth?
Can they survive on the ark if you don't feed them?
Click to expand...

Good questions.

1. It seems clear to me from reading my bible that these trolls are of the same "kind".

2. Trolls reproduce asexually, but the bible still insists that we use a male / female pair. This is problematic.

It seems clear from the above points that at the time of the ark trolls did not exist and they are a clear example of the speciation that took place after the flood. They rapidly evolved from humans who stumbled into a dark, damp, and stupid place.

3. On the matter of feeding - trolls do need to be fed to survive, but they only require attention which weighs nothing and therefore would not add to the problem of the ark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom