It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I will now show that beyond a shadow of a doubt that the story of Noah and his Ark is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE!
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
1. The size of the Ark itself when compared to it's cargo: According to the Bible, "The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." The Egyptian cubit, which Genesis' author Moses would have been familiar with, is just over 20 inches (source). Using this, the Ark would have measured a little over 500 feet long, 84 feet wide and 50 feet tall. This is smaller than your average Cruise ship. Since there are no new species here on Earth since the flood (according to the Fundies, not me), it would have had to house over 9,134 mammals, not including humans or seagoing mammals such as whales and dolphins (source), over 16,450 reptiles (source), over 13,196 amphibians (source), over 20,000 birds (source), and over 1,800,000 insects (source) if he marched them in two by two as told by the Bible. Do I even need to mention the amount of food needed to feed so many for a 40 day 'cruise'???
2. The amount of rain needed to flood the Earth in only 40 days and 40 nights: Since the Bible states that "the Mountains were covered", it is safe to assume that the water rose at least 5,000 feet. In order to do this in 40 full 24 hour periods, it would have to rain 5.2 feet an hour! That's over an inch per minite, every minute for every hour for 40 full days... And since the Ark didn't have a bilge pump... Now this is based on 5,000 feet of flooding, but if we take the Bible absolutely literally, then the water covered all of the mountains, including Everest at 29,029 feet which would be over 30 feet of rain an hour! Yeah, not even close to possible!
3. The lack of genetic diversity in all species: Since with the exception of humans, waterborne mammals and fish, only two of each species survived, the lack of genetic diversity would have spelled the doom for every species on the Ark, yet the world is full of life today. There's a good reason you are not allowed to procreate with your sibling(s), and it's not just a moral reason! This applies to all species, not just humans.
The genetic potential to produce a wide range of variation in any animal kind or species, regardless of how these terms are defined, easily provides 30,000 different species from fewer than 15,000 different kinds. Genetic potential is the amount of variation that a kind or type of organism can produce from the genetic material that is already present. It is possible for a pair of animals to harbor nearly all of the alleles (variations of a type of gene) for their kind in their genome.
Other alleles result from mutations to existing genes (human red hair color would be a good example of this). For example, two humans (Adam and Eve?) could have all the common DNA variations (called polymorphisms) found in all ethnic groups. This would require only one DNA base difference every 667 bases between the two of them. This is hardly a difficult situation for the genomes of two people and can account for much of the genetic variation observed in people today. Rare polymorphisms are few in number compared to common polymorphisms and are likely the result of the accumulation of mutations. These rare polymorphisms are frequently referred to as personal polymorphisms, since they can be used to identify an individual.
4. The diversity of ecosystems around the Earth: Marsupials are only found on Australia, Penguins are only found in Antartica, Polar bears are only found in the Artic Circle, all places that Noah never even heard of, so how did he collect these species and then put them back in their respective environments?
The answer is simple, he didn't. The entire story is pure hogwash! My point here is that if this one story from the 'Word of God' is false, who is to say which parts are true and which parts are not? It is a work of man, thus it is just as flawed as it's authors, MEN!
Maybe it's time to pull your heads out of some ancient text and take a good look at the world and the universe around you! It's full of wonders that that ancient text didn't even have a clue about! Welcome to the 21st Century!
Originally posted by oliveoil
First off your confusing the word "species" with the word "kind" which is the term used in the Bible. There were probably only a few hundred different kinds of of land animals which they would of took.And this would have probably been limited to his own geographical area and not the whole world.The sea animals would have been left in the sea.Many of the animals would have been in egg or seed form.(ever try catching a bird?) Oh and you forgot to mention that the ark had three stories,which tripled its space to over 1.5 million cubic feet. plenty of room.
Genesis 7: 2-4
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Your forgetting that right before it started to rain the springs of the great deep burst forth.(Genesis 7:11) This could of very well meant that there was tsunamis and title waves.This would have brought the water level up in seconds.Also it states that the waters covered the face of the earth and not the whole earth.So this to was most likely in one certain geographical area. Oh, And BTW, the waters only went up 15 cubits (20 feet)
Genesis 7: 20
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Who ever said that we today are pure bread humans. Maybe we are the result of inbreeding. (Just a thought)
Maybe you should not be so narrow minded and diligently seek out your own answers before you attempt to justify some ancient text.
Originally posted by ..5..
I am fairly sure that the animals mentioned in the flood story referred to the domesticated livestock (equine, bovine, fowl etc) not wild animals.
The Great Flood is mentioned in too many other religions to discount. (plus we have the grand canyon that could not have been carved out without a Great Flood).
Originally posted by Shane
Myth comes from the Greek Mythos, which means Truth. Your tagline is again?
"Proof Positive that the Bible isn't a History Book: The Myth of Noah's Ark"
Well Historically, there was a Noah's Flood, as even you assert in your title, so the Bible is a History Book. You lose!
myth
–noun 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Origin:
1820–30; < LL mȳthos < Gk mŷthos story, word
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I will now show that beyond a shadow of a doubt that the story of Noah and his Ark is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE!
1. The size of the Ark itself when compared to it's cargo: According to the Bible, "The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." The Egyptian cubit, which Genesis' author Moses would have been familiar with, is just over 20 inches (source). Using this, the Ark would have measured a little over 500 feet long, 84 feet wide and 50 feet tall. This is smaller than your average Cruise ship.
Since there are no new species here on Earth since the flood (according to the Fundies, not me), it would have had to house over 9,134 mammals, not including humans or seagoing mammals such as whales and dolphins (source), over 16,450 reptiles (source), over 13,196 amphibians (source), over 20,000 birds (source), and over 1,800,000 insects (source) if he marched them in two by two as told by the Bible. Do I even need to mention the amount of food needed to feed so many for a 40 day 'cruise'???
2. The amount of rain needed to flood the Earth in only 40 days and 40 nights: Since the Bible states that "the Mountains were covered", it is safe to assume that the water rose at least 5,000 feet. In order to do this in 40 full 24 hour periods, it would have to rain 5.2 feet an hour! That's over an inch per minite, every minute for every hour for 40 full days... And since the Ark didn't have a bilge pump... Now this is based on 5,000 feet of flooding, but if we take the Bible absolutely literally, then the water covered all of the mountains, including Everest at 29,029 feet which would be over 30 feet of rain an hour! Yeah, not even close to possible!
3. The lack of genetic diversity in all species: Since with the exception of humans, waterborne mammals and fish, only two of each species survived, the lack of genetic diversity would have spelled the doom for every species on the Ark, yet the world is full of life today. There's a good reason you are not allowed to procreate with your sibling(s), and it's not just a moral reason! This applies to all species, not just humans.
4. The diversity of ecosystems around the Earth: Marsupials are only found on Australia, Penguins are only found in Antartica, Polar bears are only found in the Artic Circle, all places that Noah never even heard of, so how did he collect these species and then put them back in their respective environments?
The answer is simple, he didn't. The entire story is pure hogwash! My point here is that if this one story from the 'Word of God' is false, who is to say which parts are true and which parts are not? It is a work of man, thus it is just as flawed as it's authors, MEN!
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I do not dispute that there was a worldwide flood event, just not as told by the story of Noah's Ark............ This did not wipe out mankind, nor did it 'cover the face of the Earth' as described in Genesis.
I also do not dispute that the story has some meaning behind it. The difference is that millions and millions of people do not go the Church every Sunday to pray to Aesop.
And by the way, I have read the Bible, cover to cover over a dozen times... It gets more ludicrious each time I read it...
Wow! Have you ever read a Science book in your entire life???
Pretty specific that he was to take at least two of every species, or kind, with him, and that the flood would wipe out "every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Not just Noah's neighborhood, but the entire planet!
6440 paniym paw-neem' plural (but always as singular) of an unused noun (paneh [paw-neh']; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.):--+ accept, a-(be- )fore(-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront(-part), form(-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him(-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look(-eth) (- s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, propect, was purposed, by reason of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them(-selves), through (+ - out), till, time(-s) past, (un-)to(-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with(- in, + -stand), X ye, X you.
6437 panah paw-naw' a primitive root; to turn; by implication, to face, i.e. appear, look, etc.:--appear, at (even-)tide, behold, cast out, come on, X corner, dawning, empty, go away, lie, look, mark, pass away, prepare, regard, (have) respect (to), (re-)turn (aside, away, back, face, self), X right (early).
Actually, 15 cubits would be a little over 25 feet, but what's a few feet when we are talking about covering mountains that are thousands of feet high! I think we already covered the 'geographical area' argument...
2022 har har a shortened form of 2042; a mountain or range of hills (sometimes used figuratively):--hill (country), mount(-ain), X promotion.
2042 harar haw-rawr' from an unused root meaning to loom up; a mountain:--hill, mount(-ain).
The Sinai peninsula has traditionally been considered Sinai's location by Christians
Mount Seir designates the mountain range in the centre of Edom.
While equating Sinai with Petra would indicate that the Israelites journeyed in roughly a straight line from Egypt via Kadesh Barnea
And I'm fairly sure you are wrong... please go out immediately and purchase 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to Geology'! That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read here on ATS! (There goes another couple of IQ points!)
To paraphrase Dan Aykroyd from the 'Point/Counterpoint' segments of the original 'Weekend Update' on Saturday Night Live, Shane you ignorant...
myth
Did you pay close attention to the last part in bold type??? Mythos means story (as in fiction), or word... NOT TRUTH! In other words, YOU LOSE! ROTFLMAO @ you!
7684 shgagah sheg-aw-gaw' from 7683; a mistake or inadvertent transgression:--error, ignorance, at unawares; unwittingly.
3045 yada` yaw-dah' a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing);..........
Math apparently is not your strong suit. The Ark would have encompassed 2.1 million cubic feet, but it would have only had a floor space (the real important measurement) of 126,000 square feet. Now as to the term kind:
Refer to the first two sentences in my reply to tinfoilman... And for every 'creationist biologist' that you can quote, there are 99 real biologists who will laugh themselves off their chairs disputing him... Gimme an accredited biologist who is associated with a respected unbiased institution, or save your time and mine... IRC is as biased as it gets!
To determine when the Sierra rose to its current height, the scientists used an increasingly popular research tool that combines geology and chemistry to create a record of prehistoric rainfall patterns dating back millions of years. This technique relies on the fact that in nature, hydrogen and other atoms occur in different sizes called isotopes. Deuterium, for example, is a slightly heavier form of hydrogen, and drops of rainwater that contain deuterium isotopes often fall at lower elevations.
Over time, some raindrops are incorporated into molecules of clay and other minerals that form on the ground. These clays provide scientists with a geologic record of ancient precipitation, which can then be compared with samples of modern precipitation collected at the same altitude. If the comparison reveals similar isotopic ratios, then the elevation of the mountain must have been similar in ancient and modern times.