Noah's Ark

Initially Creationists argued for the fixity of species - that is no species was any different than it was since the Creation and the only change that had occured was some went extinct during or after the Flood.

Including Thomas Jefferson, I'm given to understand.

Actually, I think Jefferson rejected the idea that the creator would allow animals to become extinct. He expected Lewis and Clark to find a living "megalonyx" based on the bones found in Virginia.
 
Actually, I think Jefferson rejected the idea that the creator would allow animals to become extinct. He expected Lewis and Clark to find a living "megalonyx" based on the bones found in Virginia.


He thought that every species that had ever lived was still alive somewhere.

Considering how many millions of square miles of the earth remained entirely unknown to Europeans in the beginning of the 19th century, it's understandable.
 
It's interesting that the Bible doesn't record the name of Noah's wife. That woman went through quite a lot.
 
Nowhere in the Bible is that idea that God is beyond all comnprehension taught. If indeed he were beyond all comprehension then any attempt at communication would be futile and he would not attempt it. However, in the Bible he is described as constantly communicating with humans. So that particular idea is YOURS not the Bible's.

BTW

If indeed someone has used that incomprehension argument then that person doesn't qualify to teach anyone about God since he is in need of being taught himself.

"Can We Comprehend God?"

Humm, daily thought. I do find it a curiosity of the Bible that for any one statement you don't like, there is always another with a different view.
 
He thought that every species that had ever lived was still alive somewhere.

Considering how many millions of square miles of the earth remained entirely unknown to Europeans in the beginning of the 19th century, it's understandable.

And which, despite what Creationists think, if discovered to be true wouldn't necessarily falsify evolutionary theory.

(Oh, and I misspelled "Serval" above. Doh!)
 
In addition, what was the "bug kind" from which millions of species (including thousands of species of ants alone) evolved in thousands of years? What is the mechanism of hyper-evolution that enabled this speciation? Why is hyper-evolution not observed today? C'mon, creationists, if you really want to get into the science classes next to evolution, you need to do the research.

The "bug kind" is nothing. They are at least a somewhat monophyletic and morphologically homogeneous group, as I understand it. A better question is how many "kinds" of worms there were on the Ark. I tried to ask Radrook once, but as I apparently have difficulties understanding plain English, he has me on ignore.
 
All the animal species in existence now were not in existence at that time. That's basic.

BTW
There are plenty of websites which explain in detail how the animals could have been adequately cared for by the few people on board. Also the ventilation "problem" mentioned by another skeptic is discussed and a detailed explanation strictly from a practicality standpoint given. But that's for you to google not me.

One might argue that it would be basic to anyone trying to make the story work - otherwise the logistics would patently be impossible. It does rather beg the question regarding exactly what was on the Ark if this was the case. The difficulty is that one can make a series of assumptions that could just about explain anything in the end.
 
Last edited:
Plus, I don't think you can buy "gopherwood" at the local Home Depot, and you may not be able to buy it anywhere at all.


Virtual gopherwood, not real.
As a submarine in a simulation, not real steel. ;)
 
In addition, what was the "bug kind" from which millions of species (including thousands of species of ants alone) evolved in thousands of years?

I happened to get one of Hovind's videos from Netflix yesterday. It was Dinosaurs and the Bible one and he discussed what Noah did and did not have to bring on the Ark. He said that, because insects don't have nostrils, they didn't need to be taken on the Ark.
 
The first thing he did was give thanx for having been preserved alive. VBuilding an alter and offering up animal sacrifice. Nopwhere in the Bible does it say that he imediately began making wine nor that Noah invented wine. Skills learned in the preflood world could be used in the post flood one. Neither does it say that he drank because he was stressed. People drink wine for celebration reasons and being human sometimes go overboard when celebrating. Neither does it say that he drank it imediately after the flood. As for nakedness,
the sin was in the behavior of his son Ham and his grandson Caanan who began to mock
him.

So I guess you are writing your own Bible as you go along.

He took an extra animal on the ark just for sacrificing once the rain stopped? Or was it birthed in transit?
 
Summary of Theory

A large comet or asteroid impact in a glacier ice sheet produced the Biblical Great Flood, which brought the last Ice Age to an abrupt and sudden end.

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm

What I have been saying is now under scrutiny.
Something major happened around12,000 years ago.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080506-comet-extinct.html

The water covering all the mountains may be from mans’ perspective and from localization of the area from observation of the event.
In other words it may have only looked that way.
 
There's a loooong thread on this a couple pages back, if even that. The most compelling evidence against the Ark, in my view, is that it bears an uncanny resemblance to the Epic of Gilgamesh - which is fictional.

I'll bet the Sumarians didn't think it was fictional.
 
The "bug kind" is nothing. They are at least a somewhat monophyletic and morphologically homogeneous group, as I understand it. A better question is how many "kinds" of worms there were on the Ark. I tried to ask Radrook once, but as I apparently have difficulties understanding plain English, he has me on ignore.

E. O. Wilson, the Harvard biologist, estimates there are between 10 million and 100 million species on earth currently. He has started cataloging them all (!) in the Encyclopedia of Life (www.eol.org), which current has nearly 2 million entries.
 
Actually, I think Jefferson rejected the idea that the creator would allow animals to become extinct. He expected Lewis and Clark to find a living "megalonyx" based on the bones found in Virginia.

This, like the "obvious" fact that the sun went around the Earth, was held with high esteem in theological circles, until it was proven otherwise.

Then apologists retcon the philosophy, and move on to defending the next thing. Evolution*, anybody?






* Note the Catholic Church and many other denominations accept evolution, though perhaps slightly modified as some part of God's plan and/or partly guided as need be. Burned once, badly, on Galileo, they won't be caught with their pants down again**!




** You are forbidden from making a joke of this lobbed softball.
 
E. O. Wilson, the Harvard biologist, estimates there are between 10 million and 100 million species on earth currently. He has started cataloging them all (!) in the Encyclopedia of Life (www.eol.org), which current has nearly 2 million entries.

But if the creationist is allowed to get away with reducing them to "kinds", the actual number of described species doesn't matter (1). Then all beetles may as well be one "kind", for convenience, whether there are ten species or ten million species. Far more interesting, I find, is to take a perceived group of organisms --- such as "worms" --- and ask ho many kinds that represent, regardless of if that kind was on the ark or not. The beauty lies in the fact that "worm", like so many other groups with common names, is polyphyletic. If "worms" is one "kind", then you may as well have "animals" as one "kind", as "worms" will require as much evolutionary time to form their various extant groups as the entirety of the animal kingdom.

---
(1) Without going into the futility of listing described species without proper revisions first; are these done by the same project? Or are only recently revised groups included? I ask particularly in the light of Huber's (2003) paper on Pholcid spiders, where he asks the question how many of the described species are actually "real" species (2), and how many of the described species are only aberrant individuals.
(2) The next problem, of course, being to determine what, if anything, a species is.
 
Last edited:
Your missing the point, why would God the creator, Say, “and this is after the flood",
“I give you all"?
It seems to me that the Earth was recreated plan and simple: and I know it's the god did it thing.

Would it not be simple for the creator to recreate?
It’s GOD…. Hello !
Could he not protect everything that Noah couldn't, like bugs, worms?
Noah had enough to do, imagine if they didn’t have chores for that amount of time spent on an ark.
Man can only do so much.
He’s limited by his physical universe.
To hold everything that a skeptic would have on the ark would require an ark the size of a small moon.


If the Sumerians had the story wouldn't they have also descended from the line of Noah, along with all cultures.
Science gives us the answer something major happened about 12,000 years ago.
God gives life to the dead and calls into existence things that do not exist. Romans 4:17

You will be ever hearing but never understanding. You will be ever seeing but never perceiving. The hearts of these people have become calloused. They hardly hear with their ears and they have closed their eyes. Matthew 13:14-15

I said this in another post and I feel the need to post it here.
Since you can't get to the belief part you'll never know if there is a supernatural part of it, and that's a catch 22 for skeptics.
But for you, it’s backwards, since you can’t believe in the supernatural you can’t have belief.
But that's from my point of view.
In a sense everyone has to go his or her own way.

In a sense everyone has to go his or her own way, so I understand.
Also; The last stand from your viewpoint is you won’t worship an evil God.


What you don’t get is, no matter what happens here there is no death; you don’t see the big picture.

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
II Corinthians 4:4

God only shows what is needed to be seen at the time of his intervention with us from history’s stand point or view and that is what he wants and that is the reason for faith, and then you’ll ask why must we have faith? We are not going to see all of what there is, that would make us lazy.

We all fall short of the glory of God.
How?
We couldn’t uphold all of Gods laws.
That is the reason for Christ.
It seems to me that God evolves with us.
We evolve with him too.

2 Peter3:3
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men .
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

You as skeptics are part of the mindset and the reason for destruction.

As far as science saving the world it hasn’t yet and is in the process of global warming as we write in here/speak.
It hasn’t eliminated disease completely and has brought us new super bugs.
Famine is worst than ever.

So for the past 200 years or so, with the growth of science and technology, humans believed that humanity was on the fast track to eliminating all these things, war, terrorists, pestilence and the terrors of nature through the ingenuity and moral progress of mankind.

What is the news of today?

5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.


So all this is to be expected.
Science may help us, but it can't save us, it is a false belief system brought on by men.
It is knowledgeable field, but not wise.
It is not totally infallible.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom