Noahs Ark..yet again

the amount of water that would be needed for such a flood doesn't exist on earth. there's only ever a certain amount whether its in lakes, rivers, the sea or the clouds. if there was a world wide then the world would be in a 'waterworld' type movie scenario, because the water would still be here...water doesn't just come and go, dissapear etc.

What if humans and animals drank all the water?

Originally posted by riley
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'.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by riley]

What my point is is that there are people out there who have taken the time to research. They know what the Bible says and along with, for example researching that the earth right now has more than enough water on it for the earth's entire surface to have been flooded at one time. The Bible says at the time of the flood God raised the mountains and lowered the sea beds for all this water to recede into.

So with info available today, and a God who is in charge of His creation, there are explanations available for why the earth is like it is.

Now I understand this will not mean anything to some people, because they don't believe the Bible is true. But the reverse is also true, I will believe the Bible before other things that conflict with it.

So that is perfectly fine, we choose to beleive what we want, but both sides cannot be right. One is right and one is wrong. If my side is right, and I believe it is, that means there is a God. That also means mankind is accountable to God.

Actually riley, interestingly enough, that's not the case. Australia has not been connected (by land bridges or directly) to any other major land mass since long before humans existed. It broke off from Asia, and has been drifting away ever since. The plates have been moving away- there would be no place for a "land bridge" to pop-up. It could be said that some small group of people went from island to island all the way down, but that is still a huge stretch of imagination for early humans.
Not saying its connected to the current discussion in anyway, but it is an interesting thing to ponder.

Also, although Dbrandt's statistics may be a little misleading, they are correct. A majority of all animals on earth are worms, insects, and microscopic animals. Only a very small percentage is made up of large animals. So if you take the average of all the animal sizes, you would get something smaller than a cat.

About the question of where all the water went to, it's not all that difficult to understand. If you are going to believe that there was a world-wide flood sometime in humanities past, you would also have to understand that it would very likely cause other catastrophes such as volcano eruptions. Thus, if there was ever enough water to cover the entire earth, it would now be underground, as steam, or have reacted with the lava at high temperatures to form other compounds. Just something else for thought.

Originally posted by babloyi
Actually riley, interestingly enough, that's not the case. Australia has not been connected (by land bridges or directly) to any other major land mass since long before humans existed.

Incorrect [though 40-50 thousand years is still before Noahs time [and adam and eve for that matter].

It broke off from Asia, and has been drifting away ever since. The plates have been moving away- there would be no place for a "land bridge" to pop-up.

There actually is:
These are the islands I refer to:.


www.cairnsregionalgallery.com.au...

It could be said that some small group of people went from island to island all the way down, but that is still a huge stretch of imagination for early humans.

It's not a huge stretch of the imagination.. they had conoes etc so could travel on water.. canoes aren't exactly just a marvel of modern technology.

Also, although Dbrandt's statistics may be a little misleading, they are correct. A majority of all animals on earth are worms, insects, and microscopic animals.

Insects and earth worms are not animals.

Only a very small percentage is made up of large animals. So if you take the average of all the animal sizes, you would get something smaller than a cat.

That would depend what region you are looking at.. africa may have an average larger than a domestic cat for example.. besides which it does nothing fot the ark argument because just larger animals by themselves would not fit inside.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the amount of water that would be needed for such a flood doesn't exist on earth. there's only ever a certain amount whether its in lakes, rivers, the sea or the clouds. if there was a world wide then the world would be in a 'waterworld' type movie scenario, because the water would still be here...water doesn't just come and go, dissapear etc.

Im with dbrandt on this. There is plenty of water. It seems that you can imaging billions of years and invisible links,...you can imaging colliding plates and rising mountains....but you cannot imagine a flatter earth from which those mountains rise, or deep ocean trenches which sink because those mountains are rising and plates are colliding.

On the the topic of plates and mountains, both sides are surprisingly close. Its only the timing which separates us. To turn around and say there is not enough water is to be ignorant of the rest of the position of which you are taking part.

im ignorant in saying there isn't enough water?..sorry for using my common sense and forming a logically opinion... you just said god raised the mountains and lowered the sea beds for the water to reside, yet im the one whos wront because i say there isnt enough water.

the mountains and sea beds couldnt have been raised and lowered so quickly. mountains take millions of years to develope. even now mountains still are rising, by say 2cm a year. however, in its soil and rock deposits you can see different types and so on, suggesting that this mountain didnt suddenly rocket up 2 miles in to the sky. near the top you will probably find fossilised shells, obviously from the time when that part of the mountain was at sea level or even below. the only reason why there are 'layers' in sediment rock, rock, soil and so on is because they have risen gradually and different layers have been deposited. if god just raised all the mountains at once there would not be any layers. fact. so i think thats a fair point to make..or am i being ignorant because im disagreeing with you?

you neednt even get to there though as you can prety much disprove noahs ark logically before you even have the flood. there are so many conflicting parts to the story, yet some of you still take it literally. the fact that noah and his 3 sons took 120 years to build the boat. you may say people lived longer, yet its still a conflicting arguement, which points to noahs ark not being literal. his 3 sons of black, white and asian complexion helped him build the boat. we all know that people arent just born randomly as different races. black people are like they are because they came from hot countries, countries where if they are black they can with stand the sun. asian people are like they because i have no idea why they are, thats just the way they evolved. white people are because their countries arent hot and we had no need to have darker skin.

the boats dimentions are given in the bible and someone commented saying, around 200,000 animals could fit on there. well we have millions and billions of species, and many we dont even know about. having all those animals on the boat, wasnt even taking in consideration how noah even built the different cages to hold them, where the food was stored, where the carnivors food was stored and so on.

''people and animals could have drunk the water''?? someone said that above... nice idea, perhaps the animals could have, depends how salty the water was. then again you cant mix up most fresh and salt water creatures, fish and so on...so most of the fresh water fish would have died because there is far more salt water so the water would have been too salty for the fresh water creatures to live in. so therefore, no people could not have drunk this water either.

this boat was wooden. with no boat making skills at all noah builds one. of reasonable size compared to what youd normally see in his time. did no one take in to account the weight or all these animals and their food stocks for 40 days? i would guess that 200,000 animals and their food stock weigh more than the actuall boat...want to prove me wrong then add it up, but it would weight more...and that is impossible for the boat to float if what it is carrying weighs more than the boat itself.

just some average, normal, common sense, logical points made about noahs ark as you have made yours.

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by babloyi
Actually riley, interestingly enough, that's not the case. Australia has not been connected (by land bridges or directly) to any other major land mass since long before humans existed.

Incorrect [though 40-50 thousand years is still before Noahs time [and adam and eve for that matter].

Are you saying that Australia was connected to Asia 40-50 thousand years ago??? Wow...whatever you wish to think..... BTW, you seem very knowledeable about when Noah and Adam were around. Where did you get this information from?

Originally posted by riley

It could be said that some small group of people went from island to island all the way down, but that is still a huge stretch of imagination for early humans.

It's not a huge stretch of the imagination.. they had conoes etc so could travel on water.. canoes aren't exactly just a marvel of modern technology.

I'm sorry, but I DO find it a huge stretch of imagination. They would probably be a small group in a few "canoes". They would have to spend weeks and weeks in the water, propelled only by their own strength. They would have to carry all their own food. They would have to travel in just the right direction.

Originally posted by riley

Also, although Dbrandt's statistics may be a little misleading, they are correct. A majority of all animals on earth are worms, insects, and microscopic animals.

Insects and earth worms are not animals.

Hahahahahhahahahah....ok......Every studied biology? Classification?
There are 5 kingdoms:
Animalia, which is made up of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc; and Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria.

Where do YOU think insects and worms are included? Anyway, whatever you think, the answer for insects is the Arthropoda, and for worms it is Annelida. Both are in the Kingdom Animalia.

Originally posted by riley

Only a very small percentage is made up of large animals. So if you take the average of all the animal sizes, you would get something smaller than a cat.

That would depend what region you are looking at.. africa may have an average larger than a domestic cat for example.. besides which it does nothing fot the ark argument because just larger animals by themselves would not fit inside.

I assume dbrandt was talking about the all regions. And I did not say it had anything to do with animals not fitting in the ark. You implied that dbrandt was wrong when he said that the average size of all animals is smaller than a cat. I was just showing you that he was correct.

I find it all very silly to attempt to disprove the events of Noah. If someone believes in God, they will know that God can do whatever, however, whenever. Hence it is called a "miracle". He could make thousands of animals fit on a small boat, He could let them survive on nothing but milk and vegetables, He could bring tonnes of water to the earth, and let them disappear again.
It's very silly to try using science to disprove all this, because- and here is the surprise- GOD IS ABOVE SCIENCE. So far as we have seen, God does everything through science, but that doesn't mean God is bound by science. So, if you don't believe in God, you don't have to believe in any of this. If you believe in the Judeo-Christian/Muslim God, then you do believe.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 19-6-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 19-6-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 19-6-2005 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by riley
Are you saying that Australia was connected to Asia 40-50 thousand years ago??? Wow...whatever you wish to think.....

Wishful thinking? Strange that I get accused of that when I offer actual proof and logical explanations.

BTW, you seem very knowledeable about when Noah and Adam were around. How do you know it was 40-50 thousand years ago?

Because the bible's geneology only dates back 6000 years.

I'm sorry, but I DO find it a huge stretch of imagination. They would probably be a small group in a few "canoes". They would have to spend weeks and weeks in the water,

Wrong. If there were more islands at that stage the stops between islands [some with land bridges] would have been more frequent with the trips only lasting a couple of days each.

Hahahahahhahahahah

Are you going to start using all caps now as well?

... ok......Every studied biology? Classification?
There are 5 kingdoms:
Animalia, which is made up of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc; and Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria.

Where do YOU think insects and worms are included? Anyway, whatever you think, the answer for insects is the Arthropoda, and for worms it is Annelida.

Quite right.. so if the general definition of 'animal' now includes insects [which are usually exluded from the general defintion], spiders and worms.. tell me.. where were they put? That many would no doubt take up a few tonnes of room and resaurces as well.

I assume dbrandt was talking about the all regions. And I did not say it had anything to do with animals not fitting in the ark. You implied that dbrandt was wrong when he said that the average size of all animals is smaller than a cat. I was just showing you that he was correct.

No one has provided any proof of that most animals a smaller than cats.. and I doubt that is the average. They are so diverse in size that an average could not accurately concluded.

I suppose I'm more curious to know what happened to the incredible amount of...

excrement.

(Sorry, but this argument is a bit of a no-brainer. The believers follow the Bible's account, and no amount of scientific evidence provided by non-believers will change their opinion. And vice versa.)

Edit: another question. Assuming that the animals were herbivores; why exactly did God make the lion's claws? Was the lion protecting itself from the ferocious fica plant? the devastating dandelion of doom? Or did God change the design afterwards (and if so...why, exactly?)




[edit on 19-6-2005 by Tinkleflower]

Originally posted by riley
Wishful thinking? Strange that I get accused of that when I offer actual proof and logical explanations.

I saw no proof. Where is the proof that Australia separated from Asia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago?

Originally posted by riley
Because the bible's geneology only dates back 6000 years.

Show me. I don't think it does. A day in the sight of God is 100000 years to man? Something like that.

Originally posted by riley
Wrong. If there were more islands at that stage the stops between islands [some with land bridges] would have been more frequent with the trips only lasting a couple of days each.

A couple days (minimum) each for small groups of people travelling in self-propelled boats towards an uncertain destination? I still find it unlikely.

Originally posted by riley
Are you going to start using all caps now as well?

I'm sorry. All caps? I just found your statement that insects and worms are not animals so funny. I didn't use all caps anywhere.

Originally posted by riley
Quite right.. so if the general definition of 'animal' now includes insects [which are usually exluded from the general defintion], spiders and worms.. tell me.. where were they put? That many would no doubt take up a few tonnes of room and resaurces as well.

Excluded from the general definition? By who? No one I've heard off. Perhaps by some ignoramuses, who never studied. I already told you where worms are placed in the classification. Spiders are in the class Arachnida. The "tonnes of room and resaurces [sic]" have already been used.

Originally posted by riley
No one has provided any proof of that most animals a smaller than cats.. and I doubt that is the average. They are so diverse in size that an average could not accurately concluded.

No one has? Ok then:

The Animal Kingdom is at once the Kingdom most and least familiar to us. Almost all of the animals we commonly think of -- mammals, fish, and birds -- belong to a single subgroup within one of the 33 Phyla comprising the Animal Kingdom. On the other hand, over 100,000 species in some 25 animal phyla -- mostly small worms -- are so unfamiliar that they are virtually unknown to non-scientists. The same goes for several hundred thousand tiny insect-like species populating the Arthropoda phylum.

www.indianchild.com...

From one of the first hits in Google.
All large animals come from only 1 Phyla in the Animal Kingdom. On the other hand there are over 100,000 species from 25 animal phyla mostly small worms. The SAME goes for several hundred thousand TINY insect-like creatures from the Arthropda phylum.
If you take the average, I am absolutely certain you will get something smaller than a cat.

surely that just shows these religious people's stubborness and naivity not to open their eyes nor minds to look at this great amount of scientific evidence.

the only evidence for noah's ark is that which is in the bible. in essence a story. is it even meant to be interpreted literally? why do christians take it upon themselves to interpret this story literally...maybe its not meant to be literal.

its not science that's being stubborn or naive, its religion, hence christianity on the whole noahs ark.

like it or not australia was joined to asia at one point in time. all of the countries were once joined together, of which is prety much fact. the most simple evidence is that the world map is a big f**king puzzle. the uk used to be joined to france, there was no 'english channel'...you could walk to france. now there is sea there. that's evidence staring you right in there face that other countries were also at one point joined together.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
all of the countries were once joined together, of which is prety much fact.

I agree just not during the same time period. It doesn't take millions of years for things to happen when there is a God who lives and can accomplish things merely by speaking a word.

1Chronicles 1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

Peleg was born about 2219 BC and lived to for 239 years so that would be 1980 BC. So it was between that time that the land masses were divided, not 200 million years ago.

problem with god being able to move things instantly and so forth is that the continents and countries are still moving apart of in some cases moving closure. some people believe that in another 200 million years that perhaps the world will go back to one land mass. scientists can measure this techtonic plate movement and its in the region of 2 cm for most, however to have the 'god did it theory' work then there should be no more movement. the movement of the countries and continents fits in more with a 200 million movement process, as they are still moving.

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by riley
Wishful thinking? Strange that I get accused of that when I offer actual proof and logical explanations.

I saw no proof. Where is the proof that Australia separated from Asia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago?

I showed you where there is remnants of a link between indonesia and Australia.. that should be proof enough. They have also calculated when and where it was with geological studies and plate movement. If I provide any more proof you will just dismiss it no matter how credible [established pattern] so I'm not going to bother.

Originally posted by riley
Because the bible's geneology only dates back 6000 years.

Show me. I don't think it does. A day in the sight of God is 100000 years to man? Something like that.

From adam and even to present day. You can count them yourself or you can accept the word of biblical scholars- I am not going to bother showing you for reasons stated earlier.

A couple days (minimum) each for small groups of people travelling in self-propelled boats towards an uncertain destination? I still find it unlikely.

Why would it be an uncertain destination if they lived in that region? Haven't you heared of islanders travel from island to island before?

All large animals come from only 1 Phyla in the Animal Kingdom. On the other hand there are over 100,000 species from 25 animal phyla mostly small worms.

Well if you want to get technical.. Noah's duty was to collect a two [one male and one female] of every animal.. worms are homaphrodite.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
problem with god being able to move things instantly and so forth is that the continents and countries are still moving apart of in some cases moving closure.

You said instantly I didn't. God surely could have done it instantly but He also could have spoken a word and begun the process. What's interesting is in the Bible it says that someday there will be no more sea.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
You mentioned that the continents could someday run back into each other. The Bible indicates that also. When a person finally realizes there is a God it's amazing what the Bible says.


[edit on 19-6-2005 by dbrandt]

Originally posted by riley
I showed you where there is remnants of a link between indonesia and Australia.. that should be proof enough. They have also calculated when and where it was with geological studies and plate movement. If I provide any more proof you will just dismiss it no matter how credible [established pattern] so I'm not going to bother.

You showed me proof that Australia and Asia were once connected. I never doubted that. Infact, I believe that I was the one who brought it up in this thread. However, you claimed that all this happened between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago. Never heard of this in my life. Despite what you want to believe, I am not an idiot. Show me where you got the idea that Australia separated from Asia 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Originally posted by riley

A couple days (minimum) each for small groups of people travelling in self-propelled boats towards an uncertain destination? I still find it unlikely.

Why would it be an uncertain destination if they lived in that region? Haven't you heared of islanders travel from island to island before?

Nice theory, but it doesn't work. There is no connection between the two islanders. Their cultures were very different. Did they just "suddenly" get knowledge that there is an island down there? No.

Originally posted by riley

All large animals come from only 1 Phyla in the Animal Kingdom. On the other hand there are over 100,000 species from 25 animal phyla mostly small worms.

Well if you want to get technical.. Noah's duty was to collect a two [one male and one female] of every animal.. worms are homaphrodite.

I was not even talking about Noah. You said that worms and insects are not animals, and I wished to correct you.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi
You showed me proof that Australia and Asia were once connected. I never doubted that. Infact, I believe that I was the one who brought it up in this thread. However, you claimed that all this happened between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago. Never heard of this in my life.

Thats probably because you are not an Australian.. it's common knowledge over here.

Despite what you want to believe, I am not an idiot. Show me where you got the idea that Australia separated from Asia 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.

I can show you sites that validate this fact.. though I didn't 'get' the idea from them:

Australian Aborigines have the longest continuous cultural history in the world, with origins dating back to the last Ice Age. In the early part of the last Ice Age the sea was lower than it is today; Australia and New Guinea were joined, some of the large islands north of Australia were part of the Asian mainland. And the distances between the many smaller islands were quite short.
www.petra.ac.id...

The Aborigines have the longest cultural history in the world, with origins dating back to the last Ice Age. The first humans travelled across the sea from Indonesia over a landbridge to Australia and Tasmania, about 70,000 years ago. The next immigration followed 20,000 years later.

Seems there were two migrations...

[cont]The members of this group which had spread over the western part of Australia are the Aborigine´s ancestors. The whole continent was colonised with in a few thousand years. When the Europeans came to Australia in the 18th century, they found about 750,000 "primitive" natives, as they called them, who seemed to live there as in the Stone Age.

Australia's original inhabitants, the aborigines, arrived in a series of migrations from Southeast Asia more than 40,000 years ago. There were as many as 600 distinct groups of aborigines living throughout Australia when Dutch mariners explored parts of the west and southern coasts in the early 17th century.
html.rincondelvago.com...

Now- if you're going to continue belitteling my explanations.. perhaps you could actually offer a [logical] alternative that explains how aboriginals arrived in Australia?

Ok, im not sure if this is in the later translations of the bible, but actually noah and his family were one of seven families on the ark. the others being shem, ham, japheth, and some others.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Ok, im not sure if this is in the later translations of the bible, but actually noah and his family were one of seven families on the ark. the others being shem, ham, japheth, and some others.

They were his sons....

Does that actually count as "seven other families"?

Curious.