Noahs Ark?

Who is to say Noah didn't go get frozen embryos for many of the animals? The pre-flood world didn't live in caves?

Who is to say Noah didn't go get frozen embryos for many of the animals? The pre-flood world didn't live in caves?

Hmmmm...... You are surely not suggesting that they actually had frozen POSSUM embryos are you?

Originally posted by defrag99

As I recall, if you search Google for Noah's Ark, you will discover[...]Some expeditions actually took photos of a large flat wooden structure upon the side of that mountain.

You'll also find pics of almost anything. No one has demonstrated that anything like noahs ark is atop any mountain anywhere, let alone ararat.

drhoracid
The 500 years after the flood is when the cont's made it to their current positions.

And what leads one to this conclusion?

sntx
Noah did not take two of every creature

Indeed. He took at least two of every creature, and sets of seven of the clean ones.

genesis 7 nkjv
You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; 3also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth.

Apparently god doesn't know that birds are animals. AIG is probably not a good source for information on this. They require all members to make a statement of faith to uphold certain biblical dogma. IOW, they can't find or state anything that contradicts it, so of course they only have information that supports it. Also, AIG requires that prehistoric animals be there, so dinosaurs have to be added, and you certainly can't count them as one kind. Not only that, but pterosuars, giant turtles, mammoths, giant sloths, glyptodons, and fossil horses have ot be included. Also pre-dinosaurian animals have to be added. And shouldn't they be considered to be clean animals, so they'd have to be seven pairs each? Also, they'd most likely have to be adults, or at least post hatchlings, since many animals don't determine sex until after birth (like crocodiles).

sntx
It is perfectly reasonable to assert that all of the different breeds of cat that are alive today originated from one breeding pair.

No, its not.

The complexity and diversity included in one couples DNA is a testimony to the profound intelligence of the creator.

Precisely, it requires an appeal to miracles, metaphysical/supernatural/divine intervention. IE, its not reasonable.

Have you ever noticed the diversity of dog breeds that have all come from one original kind

Modern dogs are not descended from one pair of wolves. They've allways been breed in large populations, and in some cases from different species of wolves.

A guy named Woomorappe did a 'study' of the ark and animals and concluded what AIG generally concludes however there are serious problems with even this study
www.talkorigins.org...
The idea of 'kind' or 'baramin' is not reasonable and has no biological reality.

sntx
Evolution defined as diversification within a created kind is not inconsistant with the Bible and is an observable fact

Since "kinds" don't exist in the first place this statement is false. What woudl you consider a kind? Cat kind? What about frogs? Are all amphibians one kind or multiple kinds? How many kinds of cattle are there? Are lamas and camels the same kind? Are deer and antelope the same kind? What monkeys and apes? What about chimps and man. They aren't so very different, in many ways they are less different than some of the animals most include as a 'kind'. What are the limits of a kind? A species can have some workable operational definitions, but what about kind?

My comment about dogs was to point out the diversity that can exist in one set of genes,

This is not true. Magical nonexisting diverisity doesn't pop out from already existing genes. New diversity requires mutation. Mutation is acted upon by natural selection. You are saying that this stops at some sort of 'kind' level, even tho no mechanism has even been found to support this barrier and what we know about biology indicates that it doesn't exist. With nothing to stop 'intra-kind' variation, and, indeed, with lots of variation within a kind, there is no reason to think that it just magically stops at any level.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Who is to say Noah didn't go get frozen embryos for many of the animals? The pre-flood world didn't live in caves?

Frozen embryos loaded into an ark made out of local trees? One could make up any sort of story to make the account seem more reasonable. Hell, why even involve technology, its a god caused flood, why couldn't god have given noah 'seeds' of every animal? ANd don't the animals get to the ark on their own power how is that supposed to work? Besides, you'd need living animals to gestate the embryos, and teach them how to act like horses, cattle, birds, etc.

superdude
You are surely not suggesting that they actually had frozen POSSUM embryos are you

Meh. The frozen ones are the worst, you need to get them fresh and juicy from the market if they are to be any good.

As somebody has already stated: go read the Epic of Gilgamesh.
It's an older Babylonian text that contains all of the fundamentals for the Bible story of Noah.

The dove is there, the animals, the mountain, the olive branch, and the rainbow - all and more are present in this older story.
It is probable that part of the Old Testament was compiled whilst it's Hebrew authors were exiled in Babylon. Here they would have been surrounded by Babylonian religion and legend.

When you look at the early books of the Bible you can plainly see that it contains moral tales. Noah's Ark was probably just one such tale. The OT authors took an earlier story and gave it a moral twist, showing how a man of purity would be saved by his God if he lived a righteous life. Whilst adapting this tale they also managed to throw a bit of propaganda in there against their Babylonian oppressors as we are told that the Flood wiped out the race of giants. The hero of the Babylonian story just happened to be a giant. By erasing these giants in their story, the Hebrew authors of Noah's Ark could then make the story their own. After all if no giants survived the OT flood, The Epic of Gilgamesh and it's giant couldn't be true could it?

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Leveller]

Originally posted by superdude
Ok, for the record I am a god fearing man, and I've read the bible. I certainly am no historian, however of the many things that i find highly questionable about different Bible stories, the one that gets me the most is Noahs Ark.
Two of EVERY living creature on earth? Impossible.
A real easy argument against the story of Noahs Ark would be, if all of the animals were in the Ark, then why are their species which are indigenous to single locations, take for example Australia. There are a plethora of animals that are unique to the continent.
Can anyone see any validity to this particular story?

well, these questions have lots of answers.
why are there no polar bears in Mexico naturally living, why are their in the North Pole? different climates=different animals that can bare the elemets differently, or man made cultivating. why are their no snakes in Hawaii? and why was their no horses in America before white man in the Indian days? because snakes are outlawed in Hawaii, and horses just werent brought over till then

Frozen embryos?

Yet the boat was made from wood....okay... The Bible goes into great detail on the construction of the vessel. Likewise, it states basically that they came to Noah (not sure how these embryos would do this).

Even IF we went the embryo route, then you'd still need a female of each animal for gestation...and you'd still need food for that embryo eventually...as well as for it's host. Not to mention, this technology leap needed for this....

God would have been far wiser to enable Noah to simply be able call those animals who were female and pregnant with at least one of each sex. Sure would have been more room on the boat!!!

Originally posted by Leveller
The dove is there, the animals, the mountain, the olive branch, and the rainbow - all and more are present in this older story.

I think its hard to argue that there isn't a similarity in source between the hebrew flood story and the sumerian/babylonian flood story however, there are lots of flood myths around that world, and furthermore lots of creation stories that involve water, a mound/mountain, and, interestingly, a bird as the pivotal player. Sometimes the bird brings back a branch, other times he smuggles a peice of earth or dirt away in his beak, and sometimes a series of birds are sent out with the final one sucessful.

Now, I don't think for an instant that there was a global flood, but I also have trouble thinking that every tale came from the same source. I think that the story itself is so powerful and that it just resonates within human psychology that its practicly brings itself into the mythology. Possibly with bits and peices being picked up and kept from other myths and accumulating into this flood/creation myth (not unlike the old greek story about animals forming from their parts running around tryign to fit together).

Anyway the similarity requires some sort of explanation.

The hero of the Babylonian story just happened to be a giant.

Gilg was a giant? He was part man part god, but a giant? Humbaba was a giant tho. Perhaps thats not relevant, but I just don't often get the opp. to write 'Humbaba'.

After all if no giants survived the OT flood, The Epic of Gilgamesh and it's giant couldn't be true could it?

Surely there was no sly politicking in ancient times!

Originally posted by Nygdan
Gilg was a giant? He was part man part god, but a giant?

Yeah. He was bloody massive.

www.bivouac.com...

Originally posted by defrag99

As I recall, if you search Google for Noah's Ark, you will discover that many expeditions have climbed Mt. Ararat to see if they could find the ark itself.

Some expeditions actually took photos of a large flat wooden structure upon the side of that mountain.

Now, if that's not Noah's Ark, I'd like a list of all the OTHER sea-faring vessels that have landed on the side of that mountain.

still explain the above poist please?

Originally posted by defrag99
No, the wood is "one indicator," not the whole story.

I was being partly facetious, also.

Flood accounts exist in practically every culture around the globe.

But, the reason I believe the Noah account is special is that God established a covenant with Noah--to protect the weak--in a generation in which the cool thing to do apparently was plunder.



[edit on 3-1-2005 by defrag99]

\defrag...I've asked other mods to help me and I think you need to BACK OFF!!!!!

why are freekin with me defrag? Something you want to tell us? I didn't say anythinmg bad or anything...show me

[edit on 3-1-2005 by MacMerdin]

[edit on 3-1-2005 by MacMerdin]

Originally posted by superdude

Interesting point. I still can't fathom the validity of having 2 of every, most, or even some animals. Where would the food reserves be held? How would they have stopped the predators from taking out the victims?

Damn good question....all I have to say.

Originally posted by Gazrok


The problem of course, really is that historically, the continents were fairly split apart at the time of early man, not Pangea...so the diversification had already begun. If there is any truth to the story, it's likely an exaggeration about a farmer saving his livestock and farm animals from a flood, as well as his family. I'd love to see ANY ancient boat (whether using the dimensions in the Bible or not) hold two elephants, two hippos, two of each bear, two rhinos, etc. etc. Would sink like a stone, hehe...

All I have to sat Gaz...yo rock...even again

Originally posted by shaunybaby

seems like the most logical explanation to me...afterall aren't most stories exagerated or changed through time like a chinese whisper. if noah was real then in the day of noah there would have been no scripture, stories would be passed from generation to generation. so the story however much you believe in it is either false or exagerated greatly.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by shaunybaby]

Another one gets a vote from me...maybe I should go to bed...anyways...keep up the good work of denying ignorance again...!!!!

Originally posted by sntx

I didn't say that is what happened. I was giving an example. It is perfectly reasonable to assert that all of the different breeds of cat that are alive today originated from one breeding pair. The complexity and diversity included in one couples DNA is a testimony to the profound intelligence of the creator. Have you ever noticed the diversity of dog breeds that have all come from one original kind in a realtively short period of time due to mans manipulation. This manipulation of the dog kind would not have been possible is the potential did not exist in the original kind.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Yet evolution is not a real science in your religion?

I Briefly stated my view on evolution on the first page. The Thing I find interesting is that people who believe that one kind of animal can evolve into another kind of animal have a problem believing that one pair of animals can speciate to show great diversity within their own kind. If you believe that the human species could have evolved from apes one species of cat sharing ancestors with another species of cat shouldn't be a problem.

I am genuinely saddened that anyone would label belief in the word of God ignorance. The Lord has given us information about the past because it is important for us to know. The Genesis acount of the flood is not only factual history, it also points to our salvation via todays Ark Jesus Christ.

neither the floor nor noah's ark is factual history. a person called noah existing with his three sons is not factual history. none of that information is factual history. the bible should be thought of as a history or science book, its purely a way to live your life, with religious and spiritual guidence. the bible should never be thought of as a literal or an historical factual document.

There is an interesting theory about the Noah's Ark Story, which suggests that it was possible to store two of each animals if, those people were profficient in technology as the essay writer Doug Yourchay seems to suggest in his essay titled Technology in Bible

He seems to suggest that,

Most people do not believe in the Biblical story of Noah because of a basic problem: How could a few people gather ALL the animals, feed and care for them on board a ship for months? The answer comes from...who controlled the Earth thousands of years ago? The angels (the humans with the technology) built the Arks, collected the animals and caused the rains. The chosen animals were probably the best examples of their specie and worthy of being saved. It is scientifically possible to place a life form in suspended animation reduced down to its DNA. This was the cargo within the Arks. The samples of DNA would be revived, later, after the waters receded. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention that Noah went out and gathered each animal. It only says Noah brought them into the Ark. If the 'life cannisters' were all assembled for the Noahs by the gods and the simple people merely carried them in and secured them in place, then this does explain the Noah story.

any refusals about the above story???

-

much love, light and laughter,
ananya.

yeah you got one refusal here. if your basing your answer on the fact that it mentions noah didnt go out and collect the animals. then you've over looked another point...nowhere does it say he put them in suspended animation or just have samples of their dna to then recreate them later. that idea is more ludicrus than the original going out and collecting the animals. why cant anyone accept the fact that the noah's ark story has been exagerated from a localised flood, with noah probably taking his farm animals on board...to a world wide catastophy, where noah performs impossible task after impossible task.

any refusals about the above story???

Absolutely.

1. The Bible states Noah (not these techno angels you mention) built the ark.

2. Furthermore, it states he built it out of WOOD, and even gives the dimensions used by Noah. It DOESN'T mention any kind of tech, not even anything that can be alluded to it.

3. IF it were true, you'd STILL need HOSTS for those embryos, DNA, etc. to grow the animals.

4. It states that Noah CALLED the animals, it doesn't say he placed them in stasis, collected them, etc.

5. Nowhere, does it state Noah had help from Angels, indeed the lesson is largely centered around the work it took to build the ark.