Noahs Ark..yet again

Ok I was just wondering about something. If Noah only brought his family on the Ark and the animals, where did other races come from? I mean if all humans were killed, how could they have re-emerged. Where did other religions come from? Damn confusion....................................................................................

Maybe one of the animals?

Originally posted by Atomix
Ok I was just wondering about something. If Noah only brought his family on the Ark and the animals, where did other races come from? I mean if all humans were killed, how could they have re-emerged. Where did other religions come from? Damn confusion....................................................................................

There is only one race . . . the human race!

No I meant like Chineese, Tibetans, Native-Americans, Indians and their uniqe cultures. Where did they come from if Noah only brought his Family?

It was noah his family, and thier spouses.

It could have very well have been a mutation into the genes that God willed that created the differant ethnic types we know of today. It could have been a conviniat way to seperate people, and help them survive in differant enviorments. For someone who was able to create the universe in 5 days, you think adding pigments to the skin of an unborn baby is beyond him?

Who knows this "mutation" could have been an outcast and with Gods direction built a boat and was never seen from again, but God willed him to another delta or fertile river inlet to the ocean and started up another part of the humand race.

Ham is the father of the nations of subsaharan africa and other dark skin peoples.
Shem is the father of the north african, mideast and possibly iranian... jepheth is the father of the rest

Sorry for the short post, but the following article sums up the answer quite thoroughly.


How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?

More Noah's Ark Questions

Steve

Originally posted by jake1997
Ham is the father of the nations of subsaharan africa and other dark skin peoples.

So did Ham walk all the way to Australia to be father to the aborigines? That would of had to of been forty thousand years ago of course.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by riley]

Ok i got it now. Thanks SNTX

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by jake1997
Ham is the father of the nations of subsaharan africa and other dark skin peoples.

So did Ham walk all the way to Australia to be father to the aborigines? That would of had to of been forty thousand years ago of course.
[edit on 14-6-2005 by riley]

You know, that is actually something worth looking into. How on earth did Australia get populated? The Mungo(sp?) man is supposed to be tens of thousands of years old. However, we know also that Australia/New Zealand has been an island since long before man. It is also an Island that is very far from the other places.
I'm not saying it has anything to do with Noah, but how exactly DID Australia get populated? I get the feeling that those early Homo Sapiens were not all that great with boats. How could they spend months in an ancient boat, just trying their luck, and then suddenly finding Australia?

apparently noah's 3 sons were white, black and like asian i think. are you laughing...you should be because its absurd.

if adam and eve were the first two humans and all humans are from those two then our genetic makeup would be so confused that well i think we would have all died out by now from inbred diseases. lets take 2 sons and 2 daughters from a family, they each pair up and have another two children. by the 3rd maybe 4th gerneration you'll start to see heriditoy and inbred diseases. like with pedigree dogs, i think 4/6 dalmations are born blind etc. you cannot inbreed, it doesnt work like that. we cannot be from just two humans. fact.

back to noah's ark..illogical, not possible even by miracle standards, basic human common sense will tell you noah's ark is not a literal account of events that 'actually' happened.

There's a much easier way to question the Ark account.

1. the dimensions given (in the Bible) would NOT be sufficient to even hold the necessary common animals (remember, he had more than just two, of the "clean" animals).
2. it wouldn't have had food for them all, the stores for 40 days and nights for all those animals would dwarf the space needed for the animals themselves! Can you imagine 40 days worth of food for you? How much room would that take?
3. what about extra animals for the carnivores?
4. the rain may have supplied water, but sure would have required a hell of a system.
5. how does one keep the piece on a small boat with lions and gazelles, etc. Surely there were fights!

There are more logical holes in this than one even has time to think of....

Not that I am agreeing or disagreeing with you in principal shauny, but humanity has had it's VERY large share of inbreeding. We are all related more closely than you think.
Think of it statistically. For you to be born, required 2 people, your mother and father. Their existence required 4 people, their respective parents. Go up to the Roman era (about 80 generations up) and there is a need for 10^14 people. And humanity was around for much longer than that.
Think about it. Throughout the entire human history, there could not have been even 10^14 people. There was obviously a lot of inbreeding. It was probably very close inbreeding, because early humans relied heavily on the family system.
So, obviously, extreme inbreeding does not cause as many problems as supposed. The only thing is, unlike other species, humans have almost 0% genetic diversity.

Gaz, not sure about this, my only source is the Bible movie , but according to them, there was some very special cases of diet on Noah's boat. Apparently the carnivores drank milk.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 17-6-2005 by babloyi]

Originally posted by Gazrok

3. what about extra animals for the carnivores?

5. how does one keep the piece on a small boat with lions and gazelles, etc. Surely there were fights!

There are more logical holes in this than one even has time to think of....

It appears from Bible study that all animals were strictly herbivores before their exit from Noah's ark. When Christ returns animals will once again return to that state. What appears impossible is possible with a God who can achieve anything.

Originally posted by Gazrok
There's a much easier way to question the Ark account.

1. the dimensions given (in the Bible) would NOT be sufficient to even hold the necessary common animals (remember, he had more than just two, of the "clean" animals).

The volume of the ark would be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high. This equals 1,518,750 cubic feet and is comparable to 569 modern railroad boxcars. Therefore each boxcar, by comparison, would be 1,518,750 ÷ 569, or 2,669 cubic feet of space. The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat. But, just to keep it safe let's consider the average size of an animal to be a sheep. The average double deck stock car holds 240 sheep. The Ark capacity would be about 569 x 240 equaling 136,560 animals of that size. However, that still is not accurate for our needs. Since most birds, reptiles, and amphibians are much smaller, let's double the boxcar capacity for them. Therefore, the boxcars could each hold 480 different kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians.

www.carm.org...

I would really encourage people to not just go with flow of the world in saying that the Bible and what it contains cannot be true.

People have the wrong conception of God. He is not a small God, He is an AWESOME God who can accomplish what is needed to keep His creation going. People have limited knowledge but God is unlimited in what He knows and as such can acheive things we people cannot even think of.

Originally posted by dbrandt
The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat.

No they aren't.. thats a very convenient [and weak] explanation [as is calling all animals herbavours ..does that include cats?] to force the story to 'fit' into reality. It fits into reality as much as a dinosaur would have fitted inside the ark [assuming the ark was also able to travel back in time before humans even existed.]

Babloyi,
The aborigines and Mouris [NZ] originally may have travelled through indonesia.. [probably alot more than forty thousand years ago] via land bridges, canoes and migrating from collections of small islands that for the most part are now below sea level.


[edit on 17-6-2005 by riley]

[edit on 17-6-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by dbrandt
The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat.

No they aren't.. thats a very convenient [and weak] explanation [as is calling all animals herbavours

..does that include cats?]
[edit on 17-6-2005 by riley]

I certainly don't mean this to be rude but it will sound that way. There are plenty of sites that testify to this fact. Just because you say the opposite doesn't hold any weight with me. And yes ALL animals were herbivores.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by dbrandt
The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat.

No they aren't.. thats a very convenient [and weak] explanation [as is calling all animals herbavours

..does that include cats?]
[edit on 17-6-2005 by riley]

I certainly don't mean this to be rude but it will sound that way. There are plenty of sites that testify to this fact.

PLENTY of sites? Wow that changes everything.
Just because plenty of people have built sites that parrot what the bible says- it does not make it 'fact'.

Just because you say the opposite doesn't hold any weight with me.

Myself and the entire scientific community.. and most people who have common sense. I don't expect scientific facts to hold any weight with you.. especially those which contradict the bible.

And yes ALL animals were herbivores.

And your proof is..? [Saying 'cuz the bible says so' does not qualify.]

[edit on 17-6-2005 by riley]

define cat. are you on about household cats? or cats like lions, tigers etc... you say cat, you have domestic cats all the way up to lions, so saying most animals are smaller than cats is quite right, there are a lot of animals smaller than a lion. you'll rarely find anything bigger than a lion. i see you know you animals well :bnghd:

instead of reading the bible and readin sites that 'parrot' the bible, why don't you make your own mind up. think about the situation for a moment and see if its as literally as the bible intends. you say the dimensions of the boat were bigger enough to hold a number of something like '200,000' species. thats probably less than the number we're still yet to discover in the rain forest. the measurement of water neeeded to flood the earth 20ft above all the mountains is impossible because there is nowhere for the water to reside to. even if you fit all those animals on to the boat, you're going to need twice that space for the food supply. just think about it would you, rather than quoting from the bible that it really did happen.

If the world did flood where did all that water come from??? And where is it all now? It couldn't have all evaporated, could it?