Noahs Ark.[W:109, W:140]

[joko104]

If that were the case...why post this in the first place:

Originally Posted by joko104 View Post

So the purpose of this thread is to ridicule Christians, Muslims and Jews and other religions too? There are over 300 cultures that claim their ancestors were 8 people that survived a global flood.

Seriously...just admit I am right so we can move on.

Right about what? That the Bible is untrue? What is untrue are your false comparisons and absurd claims.

 

[tecoyah]

It would appear to make your attacks against the Bible and Christians (since YOU decided to single out Christians only) you continue to post grotesque exaggerations starting with your first message and now this on. Genesis describes the ark as being 450 long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall. For which you post structures all over 1000 feet tall.

What is not believable is your messages or the integrity of your messages for radical false comparisons and numbers. If it wasn't from the very start, this is a thread you started is your personal desire to bash Jews, Muslims and Christians for believing in the Bible's story of Genesis.

The ship picture you posted has nearly 1000% percent the volume of the ark as described in the Bible. Large ships were made of wood and a barge is far easier to build than a sailing ship.

Dayum dude, get over yourself.

I am not attacking anyone, my OP was directed at a freakin' story in your Bible, which would obviously be limited to the religion that it created. The "Gross Exaggerations" you refer to are examples of what would be minimally required to support the reality of these texts in a physical world. I hope you understand that by getting your panties twisted over this, you make yourself seem a fool and diminish the respectability of the religion you represent.

I am "Bashing" no one, I am questioning a story that cannot be truth.

 

[nota bene]

In order for it to have happened as a literal story, fundamentalists have to accept one of the following:

a) The 8.7 million species we know exist today were all piled onto a ship built by a people with no ship building tradition.

or

b) Tosca's answer. This answer says that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old and that evolution is false.

I can prove to you that both these options are false.

Beware the either/or fallacy. To repeat, you cannot prove that it didn't happen.

And I don't know why you would assume that all "8.7 million species that we know today" were known or in existence in Biblical times.

 

[X Factor]

Dayum dude, get over yourself.

I am not attacking anyone, my OP was directed at a freakin' story in your Bible, which would obviously be limited to the religion that it created. The "Gross Exaggerations" you refer to are examples of what would be minimally required to support the reality of these texts in a physical world. I hope you understand that by getting your panties twisted over this, you make yourself seem a fool and diminish the respectability of the religion you represent.

I am "Bashing" no one, I am questioning a story that cannot be truth.

I always love it when people who just as soon my religion didn't exist at all tell me what I need to do to be "respectable". Lol.

 

[humbolt]

A bunch of old stories doesn't make something true, have you ever heard of fiction?

I take it you didn't read the link completely. The research supporting the theory is on going. Have you ever heard of scientific research? A healthy level of curiosity is required in order to embrace such efforts at understanding, and it doesn't necessarily require any religious component or interpretation at all.

 

[tecoyah]

Right about what? That the Bible is untrue? What is untrue are your false comparisons and absurd claims.

It is obviously futile to discuss this further with you....please wipe the foam from your mouth.

Goodbye.

 

[joko104]

Dayum dude, get over yourself.

I am not attacking anyone, my OP was directed at a freakin' story in your Bible, which would obviously be limited to the religion that it created. The "Gross Exaggerations" you refer to are examples of what would be minimally required to support the reality of these texts in a physical world. I hope you understand that by getting your panties twisted over this, you make yourself seem a fool and diminish the respectability of the religion you represent.

I am "Bashing" no one, I am questioning a story that cannot be truth.

What is absolutely, 100%, totally factually false are your messages - grotesquely false for the purpose of your attacks:

You were completely false and untruthful claiming there are 400,000 species of land animals.

You were completely false and untruthful claiming it would take 4 square miles to house such animals.

You were completely false and untruthful comparing the 450 foot description of a wooden barge to steel structures over 1000 feet tall.

By those extremely false messages all you are proving is there is no credibility or accuracy in your attacks.

Another example of how this is all just your personal desire to attack Christians is your asserting I am a Christian - which I have never posted on the forum. What I am doing is pointing out that your messages are of grotesquely false factual claims for which you have no clue what you are talking about. The only certainly of what is 100% totally false are the false "facts" you claim in this thread. What is absolutely not true are fact-claims in your messages. What people should not believe is you.

I have yet to read anyone post anything proving the story of the ark was impossible.

 

[nota bene]

I take it you didn't read the link completely. The research supporting the theory is on going. Have you ever heard of scientific research? A healthy level of curiosity is required in order to embrace such efforts at understanding, and it doesn't necessarily require any religious component or interpretation at all.

Very generous of you. I think he didn't click on the link at all.

 

[joko104]

Beware the either/or fallacy. To repeat, you cannot prove that it didn't happen.

And I don't know why you would assume that all "8.7 million species that we know today" were known or in existence in Biblical times.

When some people set out to attack religion they'll tell any lie to do it. The majority of species are sea life that would not have to be on the ark. Nearly all the rest are insects and microscopic creatures. I posted the actual number of land mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. There are only about 6,000 species of mammals and very few of those are large. But to make the attack such absurdly false numbers such as 8.7 million is posted.

 

[humbolt]

Very generous of you. I think he didn't click on the link at all.

Probably not. It's scary to some, I guess. The deposits brought up from the Black Sea indicate salt water mollusks starting somewhere in the 5,000 to 7,000 years ago range if I remember correctly. Whether that indicates a flood or not is something to be determined, but it's pretty clear something significant happened to introduce salt water in the Black Sea.

 

[marduc]

When some people set out to attack religion they'll tell any lie to do it. The majority of species are sea life that would not have to be on the ark. Nearly all the rest are insects and microscopic creatures. I posted the actual number of land mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. There are only about 6,000 species of mammals and very few of those are large. But to make the attack such absurdly false numbers such as 8.7 million is posted.

Virtually all of that sea life would have died from osmotic shock due to changing salinity. Then there is all the submerged plant life that would have perished as well. Insects? molluscs (such as terrestrial snails)? arachnids? you need to include those in your land based numbers.

So yes virtually every species DOES need to be accounted for. If you are saying only a handful of kinds went onto the ark, then you need to account for the impossibility of the proposed "hyper evolutionary" diversification that occurred since the flood.


The story of the flood has so many holes and weaknesses that I find it absolutely mind boggling that people can actually take it literally.

 

[tosca1]

And genetics shows that your suggested "hyper evolution" is an impossibility.

Genesis 1
25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Nothing is impossible with God. God must've also created the potential for a vast variety within the original created kinds.


The phrase, "according to its (their) kind," relating to creatures and plants that were created, appear ten times in Genesis.

The word, "kind," is also used when God instructed Noah to take two of every kind of land animal onto the Ark (Genesis 6), and when God commanded the animals to reproduce after the Flood (Genesis 8).

Kind is a significant word. It may refer to the classification of "family." As an example: Felidae.


Felidae is the biological family of the cats; a member of this family is called a felid. The most familiar felid is the domestic cat, which first became associated with humans about 10,000 years ago, but the family includes all other wild cats, including the big cats.

Extant felids belong to one of two subfamilies: Pantherinae (which includes the tiger, the lion, the jaguar, and the leopard), and Felinae (which includes the cougar, the cheetah, the lynxes, the ocelot, and the domestic cat).

Felidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[marduc]

The phrase, "according to its (their) kind," relating to creatures and plants that were created, appear ten times in Genesis.

The word, "kind," is also used when God instructed Noah to take two of every kind of land animal onto the Ark (Genesis 6), and when God commanded the animals to reproduce after the Flood (Genesis 8).

Kind is a significant word. It may refer to the classification of "family." As an example: Felidae.


Felidae is the biological family of the cats; a member of this family is called a felid. The most familiar felid is the domestic cat, which first became associated with humans about 10,000 years ago, but the family includes all other wild cats, including the big cats.

Extant felids belong to one of two subfamilies: Pantherinae (which includes the tiger, the lion, the jaguar, and the leopard), and Felinae (which includes the cougar, the cheetah, the lynxes, the ocelot, and the domestic cat).

Felidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me know when you are ready to address my specific point and offer something that shows that the post flood diversification could even be possible.

 

[tosca1]

Virtually all of that sea life would have died from osmotic shock due to changing salinity.

How do you know?

 

[marduc]

How do you know? :lol:

The courses I took in marine biology, and the time that I have spent raising marine organisms and actually seeing it happen.

next?

 

[tosca1]

Let me know when you are ready to address my specific point and offer something that shows that the post flood diversification could even be possible.

I thought I just did.

What was your specific point again? Explain.

 

[tosca1]

The courses I took in marine biology, and the time that I have spent raising marine organisms and actually seeing it happen.

next?

Next....

When did you take that course, and observe the organisms?

What millennium was that? :mrgreen:

 

[humbolt]

The courses I took in marine biology, and the time that I have spent raising marine organisms and actually seeing it happen.

next?

The Black Sea has a positive fresh water balance.

 

[tosca1]

The courses I took in marine biology, and the time that I have spent raising marine organisms and actually seeing it happen. next?

It's kinda absurd that one minute you're referring to hyper-evolution and in the next breath you're comparing
modern-day sea animals with those that existed thousands of years ago, like nothing could've been different, or had changed at all. And you sound so darn sure about it, too! :mrgreen:

 

[marduc]

I thought I just did.

What was your specific point again? Explain.

We know the specific rates that mutations occur. For your handful of "kinds" to diversify in a few thousands of years post flood theses mutation rates would have to be tens if not hundreds of thousands times faster than what we observe.

When was that?

Why so you can say "were you there" regarding the flood? Chemistry worked the exact same way 4500 hundred years ago.

If it was not an attempt at a baiting question, it is entirely irrelevant as to "when" in the first place.

 

[marduc]

The Black Sea has a positive fresh water balance.

We are not talking about a localized flood we are talking about a global flood.

Even so, the black sea would have initially been fresh water that was then flooded with salt water. I do not disagree that there may have been a localized flooding of the black sea that is the grain of truth behind the fables that grew out of it specific to that region, that is plausible.

 

[marduc]

It's kinda absurd that one minute you're referring to hyper-evolution and in the next breath you're comparing
modern-day sea animals with those that existed thousands of years ago, like nothing could've been different, or had changed at all. And you sound so darn sure about it, too! :mrgreen:

It is your claim that brings up the problem of hyper evolution. I am saying that this is impossible. The only problem we have here is your comprehension.

 

[humbolt]

We are not talking about a localized flood we are talking about a global flood.

Even so, the black sea would have initially been fresh water that was then flooded with salt water. I do not disagree that there may have been a localized flooding of the black sea that is the grain of truth behind the fables that grew out of it specific to that region, that is plausible.

There is evidence the earth was once completely covered with water, but that evidence goes back at least 2 billion years - not within the time period under discussion. I have no idea what would constitute a "global flood" to people living thousands of years ago, and I think I'm safe in saying that nobody else does, either. I mention the Black Sea because there is evidence of a sort that a flood may have occurred in that region in the time frame under discussion. There is further evidence that the Black Sea suffered an incursion of salt water at that time which exists to this day, and given it's salinity, it is entirely possible that many water dwelling species survived that incursion given the nature of that body of water. The point is that there is evidence of a great flood in that region. Whether that is the flood of Biblical fame or not will likely never be known. The distinction may mean more to fundamentalists, but for others it's sufficient to understand that such an event may have occurred in spite of protestations that it couldn't possibly have happened. Since the concept of a "globe" was not considered back 7,000 years ago, talking about a global flood in their minds would likely have only included that portion of the world that they knew. Yes, I'm mixing myth with fact, but in truth that's how such things are recorded, and we have ample evidence of such evolutions of fact and myth.

 

[Wiseone]

I take it you didn't read the link completely. The research supporting the theory is on going. Have you ever heard of scientific research? A healthy level of curiosity is required in order to embrace such efforts at understanding, and it doesn't necessarily require any religious component or interpretation at all.

To believe that the Earth was flooded and that every bit of life besides one dude, his family, and a bunch of animals on a boat was destroyed, THEN all this water which magically appeared suddenly disappears and this group of folks and their animals magically repopulate the Earth is ****ing stupid.

It is God damn borderline mental retardation or brain washing to believe such an event actually happened.

 

[tosca1]

We know the specific rates that mutations occur. For your handful of "kinds" to diversify in a few thousands of years post flood theses mutation rates would have to be tens if not hundreds of thousands times faster than what we observe.

Genetic diversity in Noah's Ark is less daunting compared to the big question as to where did we get the genetic material for all forms of life on earth today, considering that we all are supposed to have evolved from some single-celled organism that spontaneously developed from some "primordial soup."

Why so you can say "were you there" regarding the flood?

No I wasn't there, either....but it's not me who's spouting off "authoritative" statement. Furthermore, my speculations sound more reasonable.

Chemistry worked the exact same way 4500 hundred years ago.

It's not the chemistry. It's the sea creatures - how they've responded to such chemistry.

If you believe in evolution, surely it's not unreasonable to think that some of the sea creatures had already undergone some changes that would've allowed them to survive the change in the water - after all, volcanic eruptions and other great floods had happened before. Those events even re-shaped the landscape of earth.

If it was not an attempt at a baiting question, it is entirely irrelevant as to "when" in the first place.

It was a response to your "authoritative" account.