• 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?

Am I really stupid if I never thought of that?

Whenever I engage in this topic, I try to come up with some sort of new angle to try to make the point that maybe there is a better explanation for the flood story.

Right now, I'm focusing on the deceptive elements of the flood story, and that's what led me to the previous line of argument. God doesn't need a boat in order to save the animals. Furthermore, a boat wouldn't have worked anyway. So, what's up with the boat?
 
Right now, I'm focusing on the deceptive elements of the flood story, and that's what led me to the previous line of argument. God doesn't need a boat in order to save the animals.

Did you, like, watch Star Trek V recently?
 
"Then the LORD said , etc."

154 said:
Not familiar enough with [the layer of 65-million-year-old iridium blanketing the earth] to say, so I don't know, and I'm not going to research it now.

154, your Bible-quoting is a non-sequitur. What are you hoping to achieve by posting a passage of unsubstantiated folklore of an ancient people? We're talking about the possible scientific validity of this millennia-old Flood account, and you're posting the English translation of a portion of that account, with no attendant commentary or explanation as to what you think it means or why it's important to the discussion. Does it provide any insight into the questions at hand? Does it refute what we skeptics and the NCSE have put forward in rebuttal to that absurd and horrifying old children's story? Does it have any bearing whatsoever on the specific matter at hand?

Also, I note that several days have passed since you claimed to be unfamiliar with the layer of Jurassic iridium that covers the earth. Have you had a chance to look into this yet? Or do you simply not care to investigate it, out of concern that it will contradict your uncritical and unsubstantiated belief system?
 
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.

Radrook you're missing the best explanation.

Noah took blood samples from all the animals and this blood had the DNA in it so storage was no problem, then after the flood he poured the DNA into the saline pools left and the sun did the rest.
 
Did you, like, watch Star Trek V recently?

Was that the one with the marshmallow roast, or whatever it was they were doing around the campfire? I try to blot that from my memory.

On the other hand, in Star Trek IV, if memory serves, they demonstrated an awesome way to use an space-ark to transport whales.
 
...
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.

There's no way to make any of it plausible. An omnipotent God could simply have made Noah and his family believe there had been a great flood - i.e. implanted the memory. Or he could have created the universe 20 minutes ago, complete with its history and with all of us ready to roll, believing we've been here all our lives - and if that was true, what practical difference would it make? The whole God idea is simply redundant and nonsensical.

ETA - I didn't mean that to sound quite grumpy ;-)
 
Last edited:
There's no way to make any of it plausible. An omnipotent God could simply have made Noah and his family believe there had been a great flood - i.e. implanted the memory. Or he could have created the universe 20 minutes ago, complete with its history and with all of us ready to roll, believing we've been here all our lives - and if that was true, what practical difference would it make? The whole God idea is simply redundant and nonsensical.

ETA - I didn't mean that to sound quite grumpy ;-)

God made everyone believe there was a flood so naturally they drowned.:duck:
 
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. .
Excuse me, sir genius, if you look more closely and carefully, you might, maybe, possibly, perhaps notice that my post was, far from being some "random quote," a specific and direct response made to the immediately preceding objection.
 
Last edited:
"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!

Whether I do or don't believe is irrelevant to the veracity of falseness of the issues involved. That being so, why are you so obsessed with finding out exactly what view the person holds? I personally couldn't care less whether you really are an atheist or not. What I care about is the subject and how you are proving or disproving points.



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.

If you suggest something then it is you who must support YOUR claim. Asking me to support YOUR claims is silly.



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

Sorry you feel that way. But, it's your call.
 
Excuse me, sir genius, if you look more closely and carefully, you might, maybe, possibly, perhaps notice that my post was, far from being some "random quote," a specific and direct response made to the immediately preceding objection.

I just checked to make sure I didn't miss anything, and nope... it wasn't. It didn't address any part of the preceding post at all and added absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Whether I do or don't believe is irrelevant to the veracity of falseness of the issues involved. That being so, why are you so obsessed with finding out exactly what view the person holds?

Because if you don't believe it there's no reason for us to even waste time explaining why you're wrong.

I personally couldn't care less whether you really are an atheist or not.

Deist, actually.

If you suggest something then it is you who must support YOUR claim. Asking me to support YOUR claims is silly.

Agreed! That's what I was saying. Since you suggested something, you must support your claim. MY position is the status quo, the current actual scientific understanding of the universe. Yours is some new and unfounded theory. You need to support your claim, and you have not done so. At all.

Sorry you feel that way. But, it's your call.

Come on. Just admit it! You can't be avoiding rational discussion this thoroughly by accident.
 
I just checked to make sure I didn't miss anything, and nope... it wasn't. It didn't address any part of the preceding post at all and added absolutely nothing to the conversation.


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]
...
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.
"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."


Check again...
 
Last edited:
Check again...

I did. Still doesn't address any of the points raised. I'm guessing by your use of bolding in the most recent quotes that you take issue with them saying 'two' rather than 'fourteen' but that doesn't change the point being made and also shows that you didn't read the article being linked to.
 
I just checked to make sure I didn't miss anything, and nope... it wasn't. It didn't address any part of the preceding post at all and added absolutely nothing to the conversation.

That's because your discussion modus operandi involves a tilted table.



Because if you don't believe it there's no reason for us to even waste time explaining why you're wrong.

Well, perhaps you would be wasting your time even if I did believe. Ever consider that?
How many believers on this forum have you convinced? I've been on this forum a long time and as yet haven't observed any believer being convinced by desists atheists agnostics or whatever. Each holds his ground and waste their time talking past each other.





Deist, actually.

OK. And that can generate a debate along many controversial lines which could grind on forever. Actually, it's the discussion itself that's fascinating and not whether I can convince you or not.



Agreed! That's what I was saying. Since you suggested something, you must support your claim. MY position is the status quo, the current actual scientific understanding of the universe. Yours is some new and unfounded theory. You need to support your claim, and you have not done so. At all.


All I asked was for you to provide some documentation proving that the speciation necessary to produce present biological variety could occur within the Biblically specified time parameters.
Since then you have provided nothing except accusations that I am evading the subject.


Come on. Just admit it! You can't be avoiding rational discussion this thoroughly by accident.

Once you provide the requested documentation we can proceed from there. I simply quoted what creationists say might have happened. Whether it happened that way or not-I don't know.
 
That's because your discussion modus operandi involves a tilted table.

He (She? It?) posted a quote from the bible that had nothing to do with any of the points being raised. I took the time to re-read just in case I had missed anything. If you think I'm being unfair, please let me know how you think that quote answers anything being asked.

Well, perhaps you would be wasting your time even if I did believe. Ever consider that?

So you're still not willing to state your position. Gotcha.

All I asked was for you to provide some documentation proving that the speciation necessary to produce present biological variety could occur within the Biblically specified time parameters.

That's the position I've been arguing AGAINST. Actually, here - let me just paste your text back in since it applies nicely:

All I asked was for you to provide some documentation proving that the speciation necessary to produce present biological variety could occur within the Biblically specified time parameters.

I simply quoted what creationists say might have happened. Whether it happened that way or not-I don't know.

Well, since you can't support it even with basic loigic I think it's safe to say that that's not how it happened.
 

Back
Top Bottom