Students Surprised to Find Noah's Ark Feasible

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: amazing

They had to feed them to the snakes and goats.

That solves the food supply problem.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

I tend to think that the noah story should not be taken as a literal account of history,

I tend to

very much agree.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Shadow Herder

I tend to think that the noah story should not be taken as a literal account of history,

I tend to

very much agree.

lit·er·al
ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/
adjective
1.
taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
"dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread"
informal
absolute (used to emphasize that a strong expression is deliberately chosen to convey one's feelings).
"fifteen years of literal hell"
2.
(of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
synonyms: word-for-word, verbatim, letter-for-letter; More

So Noah's Ark Story in Genesis is absolutely historical fact?

Why would God kill all the babies all over the world again as part of everyone he killed? And were there dinosaurs back then or not?

Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I missed the word NOT twice! So sorry! to you both!

I bet you think it is on Mt Ararat too. At 17,000n ft. 17,000 ft of rain that would be 3.5 in of rain per minute for 40 days. Not even realistic.

a reply to: amazing

Read carefully before replying, it will save everyone time.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
a reply to: amazing

Read carefully before replying, it will save everyone time.

I just reread that again. the quote and the reply. My short analysis tells me that both are Fundamentalist Christians who take the old testament as history.

A S*** my brain made the word NOT invisible. Sorry Everyone!!!!!

a reply to: nataylor

Second, I don't know what Bible they're reading, but every translation I've read says that God commanded Noah to take seven pairs of all clean animals (many of the largest animals, like cattle are considered clean), and one pair of the unclean animals. That would significantly increase the number of animals aboard.

Yep. Quite drastically! Wow.

Genesis 7:2-3 NIV
2] Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3] and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Am I doing the math wrong. That would be 16 of every land animal and 14 of every kind of bird!

Now factor in a years worth of food for that lol....

Actually I'm sure I am doing the math wrong as I don't know what a 'clean' or 'unclean' animal is. Still, the numbers are obviously much bigger than 2 of every animal.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Is the clean animals to do with cloven hooves? I forget.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Dude that is freakin hilarious. I am about 30 minutes into it. I am just listening to it in the background I am just craking up.

Unfortunately, that is about how it goes with every Noah literalist.


OK I have video of it on the other screen now. Damn I have been missing some funny stuff without the visuals.

originally posted by: amazingWhere did they put the T-Rex and Triceratops?

I think they existed millions of years before God began to create the World in 7 days.

~$heopleNation

For simplicity's sake, "kind" means being able to mate with each other, for example, wolves can mate with dogs and coyotes, lions, tigers, and jaguars can mate with each other, zebras and donkeys can mate, etc. To me, the dog can be considered a "microly-evolved(smaller with different traits) wolf. To put it another way, it can be considered a variation of the wolf, not a different "species."

Now here's the thing, the Bible doesn't actually say that rapid, micro-evolution is out of the question. In other words, it's entirely possible for all of these animals to have evolved AFTER the flood. In fact, there's evidence that the blonde hair blue eyes trait evolved as recently as 4000 years ago. Scroll down to Bronze Age Warrior from Poland(try to read the comments also):

dienekes.blogspot.com...

Our Y-DNA's mutation rate is 3 X 10^-9(found on that same page), and we have 37 trillion cells, so this is entirely possible.

We can define each kind in the Bible or redefine species from a scientific standpoint as all species with the same number of chromosomes, and assumes that neither God nor evolution allows macro-evolution. This makes a lot of sense because when the number of chromosomes changes, you lose the ability to mate with your parents entirely. That's why, from an evolutionary standpoint, an animal would never be "dumb" enough to pass this trait to its offspring, as the only other way for that offspring to mate and have kids is for them to have another kid of the opposite sex, with the same mutation of change in chromosomes number, or another member of another family, with the same mutation of change in chromosome number.

And if an animal cannot change the number of chromosomes through evolution and effectively spread, then the only way is through...God. To prove macro-evolution, I think we need to at least prove whether a mutation where a change in the number of chromosomes is possible.

Anyway, reading the Bible, it seems like God only told Noah to take all land animals, which probably means bears, lions, horses, elephants(the original ancestors) and some original species of birds. The insects, rodents and "other events created by God elsewhere" were probably created after the Flood, and were not mentioned, and only Abraham's account was. The rest of the species microly-evolved from those. Of course, he could have simply created them after the Flood, while Abraham was living his life, but again, were not mentioned. I think the most "kind" that he had are all species with the same number of chromosomes in the list below:

en.wikipedia.org...

Note that the list also contains plants. Also, note that species with the same number of chromosome not being able to mate with each other doesn't necessarily disprove the argument above, because God could have just simply created them that way.

a reply to: np6888

For simplicity's sake, "kind" means being able to

...but can you substantiate what you're saying with the scripture itself?

Anyway, reading the Bible, it seems like God only told Noah to take all land animals, which probably means bears, lions, horses, elephants(the original ancestors)

Can you also link the verses to demonstrate all of that?

Also when in your opinion did the flood occur? There is no indication of the date in scripture, right? So how are you definitively saying what the land animals were?

The insects, rodents and "other events created by God elsewhere" were probably created after the Flood, and were not mentioned, and only Abraham's account was.

Still that is just conjecture.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Is the clean animals to do with cloven hooves? I forget.

Not sure but it's on my to-do list tonight. Including watching these funny videos I'm missing out on ^_^

originally posted by: np6888
For simplicity's sake, "kind" means being able to mate with each other, for example, wolves can mate with dogs and coyotes, lions, tigers, and jaguars can mate with each other, zebras and donkeys can mate, etc. To me, the dog can be considered a "microly-evolved(smaller with different traits) wolf. To put it another way, it can be considered a variation of the wolf, not a different "species."

So for "simplicities sake" are you stating that the biblical "kind" is equitable with the scientific "genus"?

even so, you are aware that in almost all cases, the combinations you allude to above result in sterile hybrids, yes?

Now here's the thing, the Bible doesn't actually say that rapid, micro-evolution is out of the question. In other words, it's entirely possible for all of these animals to have evolved AFTER the flood. In fact, there's evidence that the blonde hair blue eyes trait evolved as recently as 4000 years ago. Scroll down to Bronze Age Warrior from Poland(try to read the comments also):

The article on Dienkes blog is very specific to one individual in one specific geographical location and without high coverage DNA, only mtDNA was taken and the results aren't included. I'm sorry but it's a pretty big stretch to insist that variations on OCA2 only occurred 4000 BP when there is a great deal of evidence indicating this variation occurred ~6 to 10,000 BP. I don't think there is any argument for the validity of punctuated equilibrium, at least amongst evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and paleontologists. However, based on the high coverage results I've seen and complete nDNA cross referenced w/ mtDNA sequences there is nothing to indicate that any of the species you mention, let alone others alleged to be on the ark, have come into existence in the geological blink of an eye. And that doesn't even get into the fossil record which tells us that these species have been around far longer than 4KY. There's a HUGE difference between one genetic mutation taking place 6-10KYA giving one new FEATURE versus an entirely new species emerging in a lesser time frame. Simply saying "it's not impossible" or "it COULD have happened" isn't the same as demonstrating evidence for such actually happening.

Our Y-DNA's mutation rate is 3 X 10^-9(found on that same page), and we have 37 trillion cells, so this is entirely possible.

It's great to have an open mind and exploring new possibilities. But one must demonstrate evidence. It's not science to simply say something is possible.

We can define each kind in the Bible or redefine species from a scientific standpoint as all species with the same number of chromosomes, and assumes that neither God nor evolution allows macro-evolution. This makes a lot of sense because when the number of chromosomes changes, you lose the ability to mate with your parents entirely. That's why, from an evolutionary standpoint, an animal would never be "dumb" enough to pass this trait to its offspring, as the only other way for that offspring to mate and have kids is for them to have another kid of the opposite sex, with the same mutation of change in chromosomes number, or another member of another family, with the same mutation of change in chromosome number.

Wow...just wow.

And if an animal cannot change the number of chromosomes through evolution and effectively spread, then the only way is through...God. To prove macro-evolution, I think we need to at least prove whether a mutation where a change in the number of chromosomes is possible.

Tell that all to people born with Trisomy-21(Downs Syndrome). They've got an extra partial or full copy of Chromosome 21 giving them 47. Are they no longer human by your standards? They can still mate with others with Trisomy-21 as well as "normal" H. Sapiens Sapiens. And while there is a 35-50% Chance of having a child born with Trisomy, then there is also a 50-65% chance of them having a healthy and "normal" baby.

Anyway, reading the Bible, it seems like God only told Noah to take all land animals, which probably means bears, lions, horses, elephants(the original ancestors) and some original species of birds. The insects, rodents and "other events created by God elsewhere" were probably created after the Flood, and were not mentioned, and only Abraham's account was. The rest of the species microly-evolved from those. Of course, he could have simply created them after the Flood, while Abraham was living his life, but again, were not mentioned. I think the most "kind" that he had are all species with the same number of chromosomes in the list below:

There are a lot of "probablies" and not many "definitelies" in this post. You're running on an excess of presumption and not much in the way of facts to support it as well as some straight outta Compton whackadoodle B.S.

Note that the list also contains plants. Also, note that species with the same number of chromosome not being able to mate with each other doesn't necessarily disprove the argument above, because God could have just simply created them that way.

And then we fall back on the "God of the Gaps" argument because hey...who needs facts when baby jesus gonna make everything alright!

a reply to: np6888

np6888, What are your thoughts on Dinosaurs never being mentioned in the Bible? Also, do you have an opinion on how Noah could have housed the various Reptile species that would have otherwise perished in the flood as well? I am just curious, cause they would present a serious problem, as well as various other amphibians, mammals ect.

Just wondering your opinion, and others as well. It's interesting to discuss these sort of things. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

These students conducted an experiment on a myth and determined that the ark could float with all those creatures in it. All it suggests is a vessel of its magnitude is possible. Furthermore the study did not explore how the supplies for its construction were obtained, how the wood was treated for seaworthiness, how long it would take to build in that time period, ETC.

While interesting this does not support the bible in any way. You have reprimanded others for not doing proper research. Consider this - The story of Noah and the Ark was adopted by the Hebrews from oral legends of earlier cultures and specifically taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh(itself based on oral stories passed down through generations). One thing we can learn from early bible books is the plagiarizing Hebrews engaged in. Though, to be fair, the concept of plagiarizing did not exist then and many other cultures also engaged in it.

Basically this story does not lend the bible any kind of credence at all.

a reply to: peter vlar

That's not true, a female liger can mate. Also, mating between two different species has been observed in the wild:

www.ligerliger.com...

I think overtime, the features of the lion evolved(into tigers or leopards?) such that they become "racist," i.e they appear different to each other that they no longer want to mate with each other.

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

'Advanced physics students'?

This is secondary-school stuff.

a reply to: peter vlar

However, I was wrong when I said two different species with different chromosomes number can't mate. A horse and donkey can mate with each other, for example. However, it appears from your example and the mule that, if the offspring has a different # of chromosomes from the parents, then it's either sterile or has a genetic defect, so what we really need to show is whether a mutation of a change in chromosomes number can be both non-sterile and beneficial.

a reply to: SheopleNation

IMO, dinosaurs are merely a combination of "different" large animals that were created during the 5th Yom(Eon?)