Attempt to refute these challenges

to the noah's ark myth.

Not my material, from the site

"creationist lies"

1. Define 'kind'. No creationist has ever dared, because they know that they will be destroyed by the cladists and taxonomists when they do.

2. Explain and demonstrate scientifically, what mechanism it is that enables myriad variation within a 'kind', but stops that mechanism dead, unable to go further, when it runs up against the 'kind' barrier. There is no mechanism, and they know it.

3. Explain, scientifically, if chimpanzees do not share a common ancestor with humans, but animals can vary within a kind, how it is that we humans are closer to chimpanzees genetically, than rats are to mice, than the Indian elephant is to the African elephant, than the red vireo bird is to the white vireo bird.

4. Explain, in scientific detail how all the animals managed to get to the ark - and then away from it in a period of 4,000 years since the flood, to the places they now occupy.

5. Explain, in scientific detail, how it was that a worldwide raging flood managed to neatly sort out all animal species, without a single exception, into differing rock strata such that not a single animal thought by science to be many millions of years old and extinct, was mixed in with modern animals and vice versa. Explain how the most primitive animals are always in the lowest layers and how hydrologic sorting failed to grade the animals by density.

6. Given their psychotic obsession with the rarity of evolutionary mutation, explain in scientific detail how it was that these few 'kinds' on the ark managed to mutate at an evolutionary rate far in excess of anything any true evolutionist would dare postulate. Explain just how these few 'kinds' managed to populate the world with literally hundreds of thousands of distinct species in 4,000 years. When they have done that, they need to explain by what mechanism this fantastical rate of evolution suddenly halted in modern times that we do not see wholesale evolutionary changes with such dramatic rapidity nowadays.

By the power of G~D.

http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

By the power of G~D.

Would a supposedly omni-benevolent/scient/potent God blatantly defy the observable laws of the universe though? Surely being omniscient this entity would understand that people are likely to discount the 'truth' on the basis that it's unevidenced and contradictory to common observations of nature; specifically the number of species alive today, their migratory patterns, the lack of enough water to flood the planet, distribution of fossils...Why, if God caused some massive flood, did they go about it in a method that defies reasoning? Wouldn't God's creation of a universe with observable law, and the repetition of various Biblical accounts in direct contradiction with these laws, make God a sort of deciever?

After all, if it supposedly happened the way the Bible says, and if it was God's will, then surely he could have done it in a way that doesn't contradict natural law.

Why did God cause the flood to lay the fossils and layers of earth in a pattern that contradicts the story of a world-wide flood? Is the Biblical account of God that of a deciever?

Edit: If God indeed caused a world-wide flood, I would say he is the great deciever, not the serpent in the garden. The serpent is certainly a being of temptation, but not deception...after all, Adam and Eve DID gain the knowledge the serpent said they would, and they also lived as the serpent said they would...and God's promise that they would die the day they ate was a lie; Adam and Eve supposedly lived hundreds of years after they ate from the tree.

In summary, taking the Bible literally paints God as the biggest deciever of all.

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 05-05-2005).]

Site some sources or delete this thread buddy. I have read those before.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Attempt to refute these challenges

to the noah's ark myth.

Not my material, from the site

"creationist lies"

1. Define 'kind'. No creationist has ever dared, because they know that they will be destroyed by the cladists and taxonomists when they do.

2. Explain and demonstrate scientifically, what mechanism it is that enables myriad variation within a 'kind', but stops that mechanism dead, unable to go further, when it runs up against the 'kind' barrier. There is no mechanism, and they know it.

3. Explain, scientifically, if chimpanzees do not share a common ancestor with humans, but animals can vary within a kind, how it is that we humans are closer to chimpanzees genetically, than rats are to mice, than the Indian elephant is to the African elephant, than the red vireo bird is to the white vireo bird.

4. Explain, in scientific detail how all the animals managed to get to the ark - and then away from it in a period of 4,000 years since the flood, to the places they now occupy.

5. Explain, in scientific detail, how it was that a worldwide raging flood managed to neatly sort out all animal species, without a single exception, into differing rock strata such that not a single animal thought by science to be many millions of years old and extinct, was mixed in with modern animals and vice versa. Explain how the most primitive animals are always in the lowest layers and how hydrologic sorting failed to grade the animals by density.

6. Given their psychotic obsession with the rarity of evolutionary mutation, explain in scientific detail how it was that these few 'kinds' on the ark managed to mutate at an evolutionary rate far in excess of anything any true evolutionist would dare postulate. Explain just how these few 'kinds' managed to populate the world with literally hundreds of thousands of distinct species in 4,000 years. When they have done that, they need to explain by what mechanism this fantastical rate of evolution suddenly halted in modern times that we do not see wholesale evolutionary changes with such dramatic rapidity nowadays.



Took Noah 120 years to build the ark. How long did it take to build Titanic? 10 years? 20?

not even close to 120, also point1 and point 2 make no sense at all.

Says in the newspaper, we are genetically closer to mice than to chimpanzees because ppl think chimpanzees are related to us but they are not because there are millions of strands of DNA and only a small part (miniscule actually) makes up the appearance of an animal. So we could be related to an animal that looks completely different from us.

120 years to build the ark, didnt say how long it took to get the animals.

Point 5: Power of God

Point 6:40 days and 40 nights the flood raged, didn't say when the animals evolved nor did they say where.

(COuld have evolved on land) We've been on this world for about 2005 A.D.

B.C.? currently around 20 billions years.

So that's alot of years to evolve and change.

Cite some cources too, i want to see this stuff.

I'm pretty sure the Titanic was built in around 2 years, at least the lusitania was.

Well, I do believe a worldwide flood occured at some point, as many religions features a myth about it, and they all date to the approximate same time.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

By the power of G~D.

*laughs hysterically*

Religion is funny.

Cheers,

Lost

Tarnak: Have you actually read all those myths or just heard about them? Plenty of them don't match at all. Some are similar and many of the similar ones appear to have an origin in the same flood myth (they stole from it).

Lots of myths have talking animals. That settles it, animals can talk.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Tarnak: Have you actually read all those myths or just heard about them? Plenty of them don't match at all. Some are similar and many of the similar ones appear to have an origin in the same flood myth (they stole from it).

I agree that most of them can be explained in one form or another. A lot of them sound like Tsunami stories, for example. But it is easy to be impressed by the sheer number of them:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Shear number is too be expected. The majority of the earth is covered in water and water is important for humans to survive. An entire civilization was built around the annual flooding of a river. Even a relatively small flood could seem gigantic to a small uneducated population, let alone a tsunami or other large event.

A big problem is that they don't match up well together. It's like allowing a witness to any murder as evidence against a defendant.

Unfortunatly some of the stories are contamination from christians who were more worried about spreading christianity than learning the customs of the people.

1. As far as gopher wood is concerned: One Hebrew scholar in Israel commented to a friend of mine that gophering was a process, not a specific wood. The process was lamination. Indeed, in the Concise Oxford Dictionary 1954 edition under the word "gofer, gaufre, goffer, gopher, and gauffer see also wafer" it speaks of a number of similar things ranging from wafers as in biscuit making (layers of biscuit) or in a honeycomb pattern, to layers of lace in dressmaking, and hence goffering irons to iron the layers of lace.

The pitch or glue used to cement the layers of wood in the lamination was well-known even as late as the Roman Era in Britain. New Scientist (I can't find it quickly) reported that they used (I think) elm bark and its sap to form a glue that was so tenacious that wood, pottery etc would break on either side of the joint where the glue was rather than at the glued portion itself. They stewed the bark and sap in a cauldron to make the glue. My friend in Israel made -the same comment, but did not specify the tree.

------

2. The very task for which the Ark was to be used for, is one of the main strong points (so to speak) for how the Ark could be constructed. Lets take say 3 stories worth of what would essentially be pens. Or for my purposes "Boxes". I have helped to design factories in this manner, so I know what I'm talking about. The Ark, if I was going to build it, would just be a bunch of boxes "pegged" together, until it formed one huge box with incredible strength. All that would be needed would be some "cross members" to take care of the twist (deflection) and this thing would be more than capable of doing the job.

Two or three men at a time, could easily handle the small individual "boxes", so there would be no need for special equipment that we think they may have needed. I've always wondered how they could have made the Pyramids, but I must admit, the Ark never seemed like that big a deal to make.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/noahsarkpossible.htm

Classification . . . . Number of Species . . . . Number of Kinds on the Ark

Mammals . . . . . . . . .3,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,700 (a few live in water).

Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,200 (seven pairs according to

Gen. 7:3)

Reptiles. . . . . . . . . . .6,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,300

Amphibians. . . . . . . .2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500

Fishes. . . . . . . . . . . .20,600. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero

Other marine life . . . 192,605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero

Insects . . . . . . . . . . . 850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . . . . . . . . . . . .72,700

The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.

Since Gen. 7:3 says to take seven pairs of every bird then the total for birds would be 8,600 times two pair times 7 or 120,400 animals. 120,400 ÷ 480 = 250 boxcars. The reptiles and amphibians would be 6,300 plus 2,500 or 8,800. 8,800 times two pair equals 17,600 animals. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.

The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400. There would be 251 boxcars left over. That means that only 56% of the ark would be used for storing the animals. Obviously, then, the rest of the space would be used for food for the people and animals and sleeping quarters. In addition, considering that insects are extremely small, it is easily conceivable that they could be housed in part of the remaining space.

It should also be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to habitat peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, normal animal behavior would probably have been different from normal. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.

Though this is only a brief analysis, it should present enough evidence that the Ark account is certainly within the realm of possibility.

http://www.carm.org/questions/noahsark.htm

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-06-2005).]

To put in another way each animal gets just under 18 cubic feet to live in and store enought food for a year.

A year ? What are you talking about ? It is estimated that approximately 140 days went by between the start of the flood, and the end of the dissipation of the water.

Certainly not a year.

*confused*

Here ya go, kids...

16+ pages of reasons why the Noah account is true. Scientific anomalies, misconceptions, and outright misrepresentations.

~ http://www.s8int.com/index.html

Click on the numbers at the bottom of the page to move on to the next.

Digital, are you serious?

Photo 1 (of space ships) has been debunked and is really egyptian hyroglyphs ontop of each other. So much for quality research. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Yah, not a year but longer than 140 days.

quote:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Gen 7:11 NIV

The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

Gen 8:5 NIV



How long is eight months less 17 days in the Jewish Calander? And from the sound of it it took another 40 days for the water to drain to the point where he could let everyone out.

Edit: fixed my number, added stuff

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 05-06-2005).]

Ok, forget about my post above post. I just don't like to 1984 things.

So, I went and got my real paper Bible which is much easyer to read than the online one and found out that I did not pull one year out off my ass. I actualy remebered it from when I decided to read genisis for some reason.

quote:In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark

Gen 7:11-13 NIV

By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

Then God said to Noah, "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives.

Gen 8:14-16

And I found out that the Hebrew Calendar is very complicated and The length of a year varies. And to find the exact amount of time they were on the ark all the geneologies in the Bible would need to be corect and I have to do far too much math.

And how many dinosaurs would be on the Ark? Someone was saying in another thread that they were taken care of in Leviticus so they would need to be on the Ark.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Yah, not a year but longer than 140 days.

How long is eight months less 17 days in the Jewish Calander? And from the sound of it it took another 40 days for the water to drain to the point where he could let everyone out.

Edit: fixed my number, added stuff



40 days, length of rain and rising water level - Verse 7:17

41-149 days, water dominating all land, but gradually receding - Verses 8:1-3

150 days, waters have abated enough that the ark runs aground on a submerged peak - Verse 8:4

224 days, tops of mountains are visible- Verse 8:5

264 days, Noah sends out dove - Verse 8:6

271 days, dove finds land - Verse 8:10-11

278 days, dove doesn’t return - Verse 8:12

314 days, there is no more standing water covering the ground’s surface - Verse 8:13

370 days, the ground is utterly and completely dry, finally having returned to a pre-flood state - Verse 8:14

All biblical months are thirty days, by the way...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Classification . . . . Number of Species . . . . Number of Kinds on the Ark

Mammals . . . . . . . . .3,700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,700 (a few live in water).

Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,200 (seven pairs according to

Gen. 7:3)

Reptiles. . . . . . . . . . .6,300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,300

Amphibians. . . . . . . .2,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500

Fishes. . . . . . . . . . . .20,600. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero

Other marine life . . . 192,605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zero

Insects . . . . . . . . . . . 850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . . . . . . . . . . . .72,700

The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.

Since Gen. 7:3 says to take seven pairs of every bird then the total for birds would be 8,600 times two pair times 7 or 120,400 animals. 120,400 ÷ 480 = 250 boxcars. The reptiles and amphibians would be 6,300 plus 2,500 or 8,800. 8,800 times two pair equals 17,600 animals. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.

The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400. There would be 251 boxcars left over. That means that only 56% of the ark would be used for storing the animals. Obviously, then, the rest of the space would be used for food for the people and animals and sleeping quarters. In addition, considering that insects are extremely small, it is easily conceivable that they could be housed in part of the remaining space.

It should also be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to habitat peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, normal animal behavior would probably have been different from normal. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.

Though this is only a brief analysis, it should present enough evidence that the Ark account is certainly within the realm of possibility.

http://www.carm.org/questions/noahsark.htm



.. Which has already been refuted before. Thank you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Here ya go, kids...

16+ pages of reasons why the Noah account is true. Scientific anomalies, misconceptions, and outright misrepresentations.

~ http://www.s8int.com/index.html

Click on the numbers at the bottom of the page to move on to the next.

This article is simply hilarious. I'm actually amazed that creationists would even use these conspiracy theories to support their already outrageous claims. It is so fulled with bullshit, I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Here, refutations of three claims in the article, as I don't have the will to wade through the idiocy in that article right now. If you want me to refute anything else in specific, please say so.

"

Human bones, foot and handprints and artifacts have been found in rock and coal deposits which evolutionists claim is millions and even billions of years old. If that were true, there would be no way to account for these oddities, since man is supposed to have evolved in the recent past. The geological time frame is very obviously wrong.

A fossilized handprint in rock was found near Glen Rose Texas."



Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html



"

Found in California, the concretion in which these metal objects were found are thought by scientists to be 500,000 years or so old. On the left is the frontal view of the object which became visible when the object was broken (in search of fossils)

On the right is a side view x-ray of the obviously artificial object. The x-ray showed what looked like a spring on the end of the object simialr to the metal springs on modern spark plugs. If the object is truly ancient, the question is; "who made it?", if the object is really just a modern spark plug as some suggest, then the question of modern dating techniques is invalidated.

It sure wasn't made by the ancient Greeks, Romans or Egyptians."

Refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html



"

The "Helicopter" and other Strange Objects at Abydos

On the left, another view of the relief on Egyptian temple wall at Abydos. "Dr. Ruth Hover, and her husband

took a trip to the pyramids and temples of Egypt. In the temple at Abydios, she photographed a wall panel in a section where an overlaying panel with Egyptian heiroglyphics crumbled and fell, revealing an older panel beneath it. This older panel, shown below, contains embossed images of what appear to be ancient aircraft."

Refutation: http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/usabydos.htm

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

A year ? What are you talking about ? It is estimated that approximately 140 days went by between the start of the flood, and the end of the dissipation of the water.

Certainly not a year.

*confused*

i'm sorry Digital, but it was closer to a year. I'm not going to calculate it out here, but if you look at the text closely, it is something like 350 days (i dont remember the exact amount).

And i am pretty sure that, from the time the animals started entering the Ark until the floodwaters came, it was a week. Gen 7:4-10 (imagine, so many critters that it took a week just to get all the 'passengers' on and in the pens or whatever).

Ok, i got alittle sidetracked, and double checked the Bible. It says that "all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" on the 17th day of the second month (i believe that it is refering to when Noah was 600 years, 2 months and 17 days old, but it could be the second month of the year, which would be --according to modern Jewish calanders--Cheshvan, which would be late October,early Nov...more on the calendar in a bit).... then, on the 27th day of the second month the earth was completely dry and "God told Noah and company to come out of the Ark".

So now we know that my memory is less than perfect, because that is a year and 10 days. But, i think (back to memory again)the Jewish calender is/was 360 days (adding a week every 7 years), that would be 370 days.

Awhile back, i calculated it out verse by verse, and i think it was a little less. But at any rate, it is still in the ark more than double the 140 or so that you thought. I think that the 140 days that you meant was the 150 days from Gen 7:24.

BTW, someone mentioned that it took Noah 100 years, and another said that it took Noah 120 years to build the ark. I do not see this in scripture. In chapter 6 it says that after Noah was 500, he had his 3 sons. And in Gen 6:3 it tells of the limit that God was going to put on man's years. (120 yrs) As far as i can tell, the Bible does not state how long it took Noah and his sons to build the ark.

Also, i have heard (from Christians), that the people mocked Noah. I do not recall this from the Bible. It may or may not be true. If they did mock him, what would have gone through their minds- as they saw the huge number of strange animals climbing into the boat?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

...more on the calendar in a bit).... But, i think (back to memory again)the Jewish calender is/was 360 days (adding a week every 7 years)

ok, my memory sucks. i know it used to be excellent, but with age...oh well.

http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm

quote:Background and History

The problem with strictly lunar calendars is that there are approximately 12.4 lunar months in every solar year, so a 12-month lunar calendar loses about 11 days every year and a 13-month lunar gains about 19 days every year. The months on such a calendar "drift" relative to the solar year. On a 12 month calendar, the month of Nissan, which is supposed to occur in the Spring, occurs 11 days earlier each year, eventually occurring in the Winter, the Fall, the Summer, and then the Spring again. To compensate for this drift, an extra month was occasionally added: a second month of Adar. The month of Nissan would occur 11 days earlier for two or three years, and then would jump forward 29 or 30 days, balancing out the drift.



also interesting..

quote: Numbering of Jewish Years

The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, this does not necessarily mean that the universe has existed for only 5600 years as we understand years. Many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the first six "days" of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day"). For a fascinating (albeit somewhat defensive) article by a nuclear physicist showing how Einstein's Theory of Relativity sheds light on the correspondence between the Torah's age of the universe and the age ascertained by science, see The Age of the Universe.

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp

Jews do not generally use the words "A.D." and "B.C." to refer to the years on the Gregorian calendar. "A.D." means "the year of our L-rd," and we do not believe Jesus is the L-rd. Instead, we use the abbreviations C.E. (Common or Christian Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era).

There are many things in the "Age of the Universe" link that i disagree with, but we can discuss them at a later time...

Good night and God Bless you all.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

.. Which has already been refuted before. Thank you. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

i just read both of the links you supplied.

I would like to comment on this one for now.

At the bottom of this article was this link:

http://www.rae.org/pagesix.htm

My first impression of Woodmorappe's refute is, "oh my, he is a hot head", but after reading his replies i would really like to read his book, NOAH'S ARK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY in order to see who is being more honest, Morton or Woodmorappe.

Just concidering the title of the book, it would seem that Woody was just giving (atleast one, if not many) possibilties on how the ark could work in real-life; examining some practical problems and suggesting some solutions.

If Woody were the more honest, then i think that my initial view of him would change to: 'justifiably annoyed' but 'maybe needs to work on his Christian "skills" '... not that there is even one Christian in the world that doesnt need to work on those skills.

They both brought to point some very interesting problems, though.

I would think that a non-believer would, at the very least, feel refreshed that a Christian (i'm assuming that Woody is) has gone to great lengths to show some possibilities without resorting to divine miracles as an explaination.. and still stay within the boundaries of the Bible (unlike, "God put the fossils there to test us", etc.)

By any chance, did you happen to have read the refute? If so, I would be interested in your take on it.

Now onto this one:

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html



However, he made several invalid assumptions that, when corrected, fill the ark past overflowing (Isaak 1998).

* The "kinds" used in Woodmorappe's calculations were genera. Taking individual species, which is a much more reasonable definition of kind in the context of the ark, increases the load three- or fourfold.

I disagree. I think that anywhere from genera to species and maybe sometimes up as high as family (maybe in some cases, even higher, but i think that might be stretching). To use alittle from evolutionist for a minute.. dont they say, "descended from common ancestors"?

As far as an example of family, how about bovidae... although this would be a poor example, as it would be assumed that Noah would have sheep, goats and cattle aboard, but i was going for a cow kind example.

* Woodmorappe did not account for the extra clean animals, considering their number negligible. However, he believed that the only clean animals would be thirteen domestic ruminants traditionally considered clean. But if the Bible is taken literally, all ruminants would be considered clean. Under Woodmorappe's assumption, the extra clean animals would increase the load by 1.5 percent, or 3 percent if you include seven pairs of the animals. Taking all ruminants increases the load by 14 or 28 percent.

the problem with this arguement is that the bible considers rabbits as ruminants, but they definitly would not fall into the "cow kind" example.

* Woodmorappe included only juveniles of animals larger than about 10 kg. This assumption, however, is unbiblical

i dont think this is unbiblical. i think the bible is not specific either way on this one.



and, for some animals, impractical.

perhaps, for some... i'm sure God would have let Noah know what to toss on board.

the two basis for this arguement are weak,

* According to the creation model, dinosaurs and other animals now extinct would have been alive at the time of the flood and therefore would be aboard the ark. The only extinct animals that Woodmorappe included in his calculations were the ones that were known at the time. Since then, many other dinosaur genera have been discovered, and no doubt there are many more as yet undiscovered.

This, for now, is fair enough- since we still havent agreed on what would be the taxonic level of the "kinds"

* Woodmorappe excluded land invertebrates from his calculations, despite the fact that they must have been aboard the ark. These animals are small enough that they alone would not have increased the load significantly, but they are numerous enough and have many special requirements, so the infrastructure needed to house and care for them would have been significant.

This too, is fair enough for now. But i think an indepth look at the Hebrew wording would be in order, to identify what parameters God gave Noah.

* Woodmorappe made no allowance for food spoilage or water wasted from spilling, although the conditions he described aboard the ark guarantee that both of these problems would have been severe.

Since i have not read the book, i would have to agree with this one. I dont think water would be that huge of a problem, as it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights and even after that, i think collecting water might not have been an obstacle.

Spoilage, however, may have been, but doubtful. You see, if the account of Noah is true, then the "God" card could be played anytime God wanted to..since He would be in this game too... and this applies to the whole account.



BTW, neither of the links refuted the amount of species that Digital posted. All they did, was bring to mind some difficulties.

When in doubt, put words in God's mouth, it's the creationist way. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I mean, the bible didn't say it didn't happen, so it's ok to say God did it. After all, it's not like we are claiming this fantasy is comparable to real science or anything. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

And that would be the problem with saying God did it, or adding events to the flood that are complete conjecture.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

When in doubt, put words in God's mouth, it's the creationist way.

dont think that that is what creationists do. i did it in the above, to point out that God can play the "God did it card", and that all we can really do is speculate if it had been played. Creationist seem to try to show how science can explain the events in the Bible happened, without bending the Bible to fit science i.e. how the Bible can be right reguarding a young creation, when science says that there were billions of years. Billions of years can only mean one thing... the Bible is wrong...if the Bible is wrong, then either God is wrong or He doesnt exist. But the Bible leaves no room for billions of years. The teaching of evolution theory is the exact opposite. It is teaching that there is no God or any special Creation because it is describing a purely materialistic origin.

I mean, the bible didn't say it didn't happen, so it's ok to say God did it. After all, it's not like we are claiming this fantasy is comparable to real science or anything.

Question: Would "real" science be able to determine if "God did it"?



"If God did it, then God exists. If God exists and the Bible is His Word, then the deciever (devil) exists. If the devil exists, would he want us to believe God, or be sidetracked anyway that he could use to keep our belief from God?

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Attempt to refute these challenges

to the noah's ark myth.

Good job not refuting shit.

Case closed. Good night.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I disagree. I think that anywhere from genera to species and maybe sometimes up as high as family (maybe in some cases, even higher, but i think that might be stretching). To use alittle from evolutionist for a minute.. dont they say, "descended from common ancestors"?

As far as an example of family, how about bovidae... although this would be a poor example, as it would be assumed that Noah would have sheep, goats and cattle aboard, but i was going for a cow kind example.

Noah must have carried each individual species, since if he did not, how would you explain the species existing after the flood? MACROevolution? Then you just refuted creationism!

Noah carrying each individual species is a must for the creationist argument. He could have not carried genera.



quote:the problem with this arguement is that the bible considers rabbits as ruminants, but they definitly would not fall into the "cow kind" example.

I don't understand. So? The point being that he neglected to include various animals that would increase the number substantially.

quote:

i dont think this is unbiblical. i think the bible is not specific either way on this one.



perhaps, for some... i'm sure God would have let Noah know what to toss on board.

the two basis for this arguement are weak.

1. Talkorigins provides an explanation:

"The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of 'the male and his mate,' indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity."

Thus to bring animals who are not of seuxal maturity would be un-biblical.

2. It is most certainly not weak. The point of the refutation is to show how the original claims of the Ark's capacity are severely flawed, which he DOES show by pointing out that the original study only took into consideration juveniles, which for many animals this is highly impractical; meaning, they would either had died, or they would require much more space in order to care for them, for special food, special habitats, etc.



quote:

This, for now, is fair enough- since we still havent agreed on what would be the taxonic level of the "kinds"

It's either species, or you admit that macroevolution has taken place. Which one is it?



quote:

Since i have not read the book, i would have to agree with this one. I dont think water would be that huge of a problem, as it was raining for 40 days and 40 nights and even after that, i think collecting water might not have been an obstacle.

Spoilage, however, may have been, but doubtful. You see, if the account of Noah is true, then the "God" card could be played anytime God wanted to..since He would be in this game too... and this applies to the whole account.



The whole point of Creationism, especially in the mainstream, is to reconcile it with Science. That is the whole crux of the Creationist Argument in teaching in schools. That it is not based on religion, or miracles, but that it is as scientific as evolution.

To claim that Noah could have asked god for help, is to claim that god performed a miracle, anbd thus to claim that creationism is not science. Now that may work fine for this argument, butandit certainly does not work for other arguments; creationism being taught in schools being the prime example.



quote:

BTW, neither of the links refuted the amount of species that Digital posted. All they did, was bring to mind some difficulties.



No. They clearly showed how the amount was severely flawed. It either was not that amount, or they didn't bring each of the species, and therefore macroevolution took place.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



By any chance, did you happen to have read the refute? If so, I would be interested in your take on it.

Like you, I feel he was being asshole. I also feel that he didn't take criticims, when the whole article was a bookreview first and foremost.

He is also mistaken about many of the points he brings up.

quote:"dont think that that is what creationists do. i did it in the above, to point out that God can play the "God did it card", and that all we can really do is speculate if it had been played. "

Why didn't God make some mention in the bible? If the bible is really supposed to be a science text and God went so far as to mention closing the ark door, you would think other more important events would get mentioned.

Sure we can speculate, but it's often used as a fix for problems in supposed science. I don't know, God did it.



quote:"Creationist seem to try to show how science can explain the events in the Bible happened, without bending the Bible to fit science i.e. how the Bible can be right reguarding a young creation, when science says that there were billions of years. Billions of years can only mean one thing... the Bible is wrong...if the Bible is wrong, then either God is wrong or He doesnt exist. "

A literal bible and science are not compatible. You must "bend" one, in this case creationists are bending (and misusing and abusing) science. Thats all fine, if they want to twist science to support their beliefs, seems stupid to me but ok, then they go around and trying to tell other people that their fake science is real and just as valid as other science. BS. You can shit on your plate, just don't try to tell me it's meatloaf.

You forgot something important, maybe you are wrong. Maybe the bible shouldn't be read literally, plenty of christians agree. Many creationists do this, believing they are perfect readers of the bible. Many seem like they would rather just throw away God then ever admit they could be wrong.



quote:"The teaching of evolution theory is the exact opposite. It is teaching that there is no God or any special Creation because it is describing a purely materialistic origin. "

Where? BZZZZZZZ Wrong. Ignorance of evolution is the most common reason not to accept it.

Evolution is based on materialistic studies just like all science, because that's all science can see, but science is agnostic and says nothing about the existence or non existence of God. (re read that, burn it into your brain, and remember it the next time a creationist organization lies to you.)

It's funny, I've never heard a christian say, "Science has found out why snowflakes happen, so I guess that means God has absolutely no part in their creation." Yet they will say the same when it comes to evolution.



quote:"Question: Would "real" science be able to determine if "God did it""

No. Science shows the how, not the who or why. If God exists then he created using evolution.



quote:"If the devil exists, would he want us to believe God, or be sidetracked anyway that he could use to keep our belief from God? "

If the devil exists, creationism is his tool. Creationism has most likely led more people away from christianity than militant atheism. It teaches people it is acceptable to lie as long as it's for some "greater good". It makes them worship a false idol and makes them turn away from God's creation.