[sassyT]

In "other religion" there was a question on Noah's Ark.
In the end the topic changed into a debate on the size of the Ark versus the carrying capacity versus the number of all animals and plants that would have to be in the ark to survive the flood.

So where is the calculation that the Ark was big enough to provide sufficient space for all in it for such a long time?
Or can we accept the Biblical Noah's Ark story as just a copycat repeat of the Gilgamesh story?

The Noah's ark Biblical account is very feasible. You Just make claims based on your ignorance but if you do some research first you would find that many of today’s species of animals descended from about 8,000 genera "kinds" of animals. Thus, if the scientific genus is taken to be equal to the biblical "kind" then this would result in about 8,000 genera, and therefore, nearly 16,000 animals on the ark (this accounts for both live animals and extinct animals known from fossils)

Noah would not have needed to take sea creaatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably would have become extinct because of the Flood. Noah would not have needed to take plants either — many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertibrats were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The ark had to transport only land animals, so the mammals, birds, and reptiles were essentially all that would have needed accommodations.

There would have been ample space available on the ark to store these animals. According to the biblical record, the ark measured about 450x75x45 feet, so its volume was about 1.5 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of about 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold about 240 sheep. So the ark could have carried over 125,000 fully-grown sheep. The animals, however, did not have to be fully grown. The largest animals could have been represented by "teenage" or even younger animals. The average size of the animals on the ark could accually have been that of a small rat, while only about 11 percent may have been much larger than a sheep.

:)

[NeedKarma]

You Just make claims based on your ignorance but if you do some research first you would find that many of today’s species of animals descended from about 8,000 genera "kinds" of animals.

Which research shows that there only 8,000 species at that moment in time? And which research shows that they account for the millions of species today?

[Credendovidis]

The Noah's ark Biblical account is very feasable.

No it is not. The numbers of animals are not properly explained. All water creatures living in potable water would have perished in days, once the waters of see and lakes would mix, inevitable when the earth would be covered by water all over. All non-sea birds would have perished except perhaps a very few exceptions. All insects would have perished. Almost all amphibians would have perished in sea water. Etc. etc. etc.
But even more interesting to explain : how did all animals got to and on the Ark, and back again afterwards?
How did Noah collect all animals from N and S America, Australia, and all islands worldwide (where new - specially adapted animals evolved). Collecting all these animal species would have taken several life times...

Where is your claim of only "8000 genera" coming from, and how does that explain all creatures living today, WITHOUT EVOLUTION ? Why not one step further, and accept evolution as "THE" cause in the first place ?

On what were all these animals living after the flood? Specially the hunter animals. If there were only 2 of each species, how many species died out in days after being released, either by hunter animals or by lack of (meat) food?

The Noah's ark Biblical account was NOT feasible at all !

Besides that : how can Noah's story be almost exact copy of the Gilgamesh Epic that is dated thousands of years earlier?

:rolleyes:

·

[Capuchin]

Which research shows that there only 8,000 species at that moment in time? And which research shows that they account for the millions of species today?

Don't forget that 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. Maybe the flood did it.. :rolleyes:

[Tj3]

Besides that : how can Noah's story be almost exact copy of the Gilgamesh Epic that is dated thousands of years earlier?

This is why it is futile to try to answer all your questions. This claim already shown to be in error and yet you repeat it again. If you would acknowledge and perhaps interact on the answers given, it may be worthwhile spending more time on addressing the points that you raise, but if you choose to ignore what it said, then why do it? It appears tghat you will believe what you want to believe no matter what.

[sassyT]

This is why it is futile to try to answer all your questions. This claim already shown to be in error and yet you repeat it again. If you would acknowledge and perhaps interact on the answers given, it may be worthwhile spending more time on addressing the points that you raise, but if you choose to ignore what it said, then why do it? It appears tghat you will believe what you want to believe no matter what.

Futile indeed. You are right Tj3, telling Credo anything is like talking to a plastic bowl. He is so set in his beliefs that he is unwilling to acknowledge anything that is contrary to his secular huministic faith. :rolleyes:

[sassyT]

Where is your claim of only "8000 genera" coming from, and how does that explain all creatures living today, WITHOUT EVOLUTION ? Why not one step further, and accept evolution as "THE" cause in the first place ?

·

This just goes to show how you don't pay attention to anything and are just engrossed and blinded by your zealous beliefs.
If you were paying attention you would have known that I do not deny evolution, however I do not believe in MACRO evolution because there is no evidence for that.

According to the Genesis model of origins, God created not each individual species, but the wider genus (around 8000 genera) to which each species belongs.
Genesis thus indicates that God created each genus, not each individual species. Within each genus He provided a blueprint for diversity, enabling each genus to split, over time, into numerous species i.e MICRO evolution. So out of the 8000 or so genera, new species within each genus are being created by micro evolution. So a wolf, fox, dog, coyote share a common canine anscestor.. But Darwinists like yourself make the leap of faith that these animals also share a common ancestor with palm trees, gold fish, dolphins etc.

So again, Noah's Arch is very feasible

[NeedKarma]

According to the Genesis model of origins, God created not each individual species, but the wider genus (around 8000 genera) to which each species belongs.
Genesis thus indicates that God created each genus, not each individual species. Within each genus He provided a blueprint for diversity, enabling each genus to split, over time, into numerous species

Where is this mentioned in the bible?

[Wondergirl]

It appears tghat you will believe what you want to believe no matter what.

This could have been written to you. "Scholars say" just isn't good enough. Perhaps if you would admit that it is your literal interpretation of the Flood story that is behind your arguments..

[lobrobster]

If you were paying attention you would have known that i do not deny evolution, however i do not believe in MACRO evolution because there is no evidence for that.

So why don't you just come out and say it? You accept evolution up until the point that it interferes with your precious religious beliefs. Then you're willing to suspended logic as necessary.

Why would you accept micro and not macro evolution? What reason do you have to think that it stops at some point before becoming macro? So it's OK to accept 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, but we must not assume 4+1=5, because our religious book tells us differently?

[shatteredsoul]

WELL, logically there are many things about religion that do not add up. I personally do not share the same religious beliefs, but rather a spiritual awareness of a connection between everything that is alive and the energy within it. IT isn't something I can justify with numbers or an equation, but it is what makes sense to me.
I think the reason you strike such a chord is because many people feel safe with their religious upbringing, beliefs and rules that come from the bible and other tenants of each faith.
WHAT I am trying to say, is that it scares people to have them think differently than what they know and feel comfortable with. IT makes sense to them because that is what they have been raised to believe. IT is sort of the same mentality with believing in Santa. WE know logically he doesn't exist but yet we still adhere to the spirit of Christmas by adorning our houses and malls and neighborhoods with a tribute to SANTA CLAUS..
TO them, this is their truth and to see it differently would shake their very foundation of security and comfort, which is ultimately their faith.
Many people question their faith and religion when they grow up while others adhere to it even more stringently. The world is a scary place and leaning on faith and religion helps many people get by without fear of the unknown.
So, just because it isn't rational or logical to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make perfect sense to the one who believes.
This isn't really about Noah's Ark. This is about wanting to shake people to the core and have them question what they believe and really explore their faith and religious practices. By pointing out the ludicrous assumption that every animal could fit on Noah's Ark is really begging the question.
NOTHING about religion is based on fact. IT is based on biblical interpretation of those that understood what God intended for us. IT is based on stories that are meant to teach lessons, values and the way we are supposed to live in harmony. We can't prove that Jesus rose from the dead anymore than we can prove Moses wrote the ten commandments. These are stories that have been written, modified and changed over the years by thousands of writers, storytellers and witnesses to the miracles they profess.
WE know that, but LOGICALLY some people see it as absolute fact, rather than interpretation. JUST as you know 4+1=5, to be true from the math you have learned,They look to the books they have learned from to believe religion is the answer to their questions. Does that make sense?
Just being devil's advocate.. No sense in arguing here.

[sam8988378]

I have to credit Joss Whedon, (creator and writer of both the late, lamented "Firefly" TV series as well as the movie "Serenity", based upon the series), for the scene, below. I also have to credit Stuart Forsyth Newsvine - Greenpeace Building Replica of Noah's Ark
For having the quote handy.

I have to quote one of my favourite scenes from Firefly:

Book: "What are we up to, sweetheart?"

River: "Fixing your Bible."

Book: "I, um...(alarmed)...what?"

River: "Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics - doesn't make sense." (she's marked up the bible, crossed out passages)

Book: "No, no. You - you can't...

River: "So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem."

Book: "Really?"

River: "We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat." (rips out page)

:)

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

So why don't you just come out and say it? You accept evolution up until the point that it interferes with your precious religious beliefs. Then you're willing to suspended logic as necessary.

Correction i accept evolution up until the point where there is no longer any evidence.
Like i said before, my dismissal of the theory of evolution is independent of my religious beliefs, it is merely because after examining evidence i have come to the conclusion that evidence for Macro evolution is non existent and that the theory is based on "conjectures" aka guess work and "inferences" aka leaps of faith and nothing more concrete than that.
In years of biological studies i am yet to hear of a random mutation that adds new information to a species (outside its genus), the fact that there is none that have been observed makes macro evolution virtually impossible.

Why would you accept micro and not macro evolution? What reason do you have to think that it stops at some point before becoming macro? So it's OK to accept 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, but we must not assume 4+1=5, because our religious book tells us differently?

No, Because have not seen any evidence that can remotely lead me to believing i share a common ancestor with a palm tree.
Your logic is since a wolf and a dog share a common ancestor, you make the leap of faith that they must also share a common ancestor with sea horse. There is no evidence for this "inference". Like i said before random mutation have never shown to add "new" information.

[Credendovidis]

I have to credit Joss Whedon,

Excellent post!!

:D :D :D :D :D

·

[Tj3]

This could have been written to you. "Scholars say" just isn't good enough. Perhaps if you would admit that it is your literal interpretation of the Flood story that is behind your arguments...?

Actually, I have a scientific background and a university education, and as an engineer, I am required to work with science, and logic and critical investigation of issues. Further, I was once a believer that the Genesis account of creation was merely a symbolic story, and I was a believer in evolution. What convinced me otherwise was when I decided to do more research into both the scientific data and the scriptural account and found that the evolutionary theory was unsubstantiated and was incompatible with the facts. I further found that the scientific evidence was compatible with scripture.

[Credendovidis]

I further found that the scientific evidence was compatible with scripture.

Well, Toms777, we know each other already many years. But over all that time you have never properly explained that "compatibility" between scientific evidence and scripture.

May be a good time to do that now??

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

Well, Toms777, we know each other already many years. But over all that time you have never properly explained that "compatibility" between scientific evidence and scripture.

May be a good time to do that now ???

:rolleyes:

·

Not true, John, I have explained many aspects of it to you in the past, but when I have put forward scientific evidence in the past, you have either ignored it or claimed that you did not see it, even after I posted it 20 times. Thus my comment about the futility of answering your "questions" when you ignored the facts about the Epic of Gilgamesh.

[lobrobster]

Actually, I have a scientific background and a university education, and as an engineer, I am required to work with science, and logic and critical investigation of issues. Further, i was once a believer that the Genesis account of creation was merely a symbolic story, and I was a believer in evolution. What convinced me otherwise was when I decided to do more research into both the scientific data and the scriptural account and found that the evolutionary theory was unsubstantiated and was incompatible with the facts. I further found that the scientific evidence was compatible with scripture.

Please do give the details on the research that led you away from the scientific theory of evolution and into the belief of the creation story. Also, I'm curious... How many of your engineering colleagues believe in creationism? How many are even the slightest bit religious? I suspect you'd stick out like a sore thumb around the water cooler if the subject of religion ever came up.

[Credendovidis]

Not true, John, I have explained many aspects of it to you in the past, but when I have put forward scientific evidence in the past, you have either ignored it or claimed that you did not see it, even after I posted it 20 times. Thus my comment about the futility of answering your "questions" when you ignored the facts about the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Tom : you show yourself with that "Gilgamesh" note that you NEVER provided scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence for the "Gilgamesh Epic". That is a myth. Just as the Noah's Ark story is a myth - at least till anyone can provide objective supporting evidence that it is not a myth...

All your explanations in the past were based on claims based on religious belief, i.e. subjective evidence. Scientific evidence is however based on objective supported evidence.

All you posted 20+ times was subjective religious claims. Not one single iota of scientific evidence was ever included.

The futility is not in the answering of my questions, but in the total lack of scientific support for your own "arguments".

Of course you could try to prove me wrong. But you won't. Because you can't. And you know that...

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

Tom : you show yourself with that "Gilgamesh" note that you NEVER provided scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence for the "Gilgamesh Epic".

John, I never said that there was evidence for Gilgamesh. Maybe you should go back and read what I said.

That is a myth. Just as the Noah's Ark story is a myth - at least till anyone can provide objective supporting evidence that it is not a myth...

Some evidence has already been provided during this discussion, but no doubt you did not see it.

All your explanations in the past were based on claims based on religious belief, i.e. subjective evidence. Scientific evidence is however based on objective supported evidence.

And every time that I posted evidence from science and from scientific sites, you claimed not to see it, or would argue against it - no matter what it was. Remember when you argued that magnetic compass needles point East-West simply because I pointed out that they pointed North-South? (even after I provided sites ranging from military to scientific to the Boy Scouts)

A critical thinker examines the facts before coming to a conclusion. A critical thinker does not simply deny everything that he does not believe.