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.

 

Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
A simple question, but one that needs a coherent answer.
In this clip a New Zealand gentleman (not sure on the accent) asks Christian creationists how Noah got the flightless birds in southern countries - like the many species of Moa - onto the ark.
Not sure why He really bothered, because the Maori apparently ate them all eventually.
One could probably ask the same question for many other species too.
OK, our South African species like the springbok could have wandered to the middle-East over land.
But the kangaroo? I doubt it could swim that far.
So, a simple question well put:




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


All of these flightless birds are related. It's feasible that they developed as unique species after some event parted them.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Steve Wrathall amusingly (?) implies that Noah might have made global pit-stops to pick up the flightless birds, like the dodo and the emu before everything was flooded.
Could be plausible? Not sure if 40 days would suffice for picking species up around the globe however.

Or rather, he suggests that one part of the family was in Syria building the Ark, and the other part was already travelling the seas collecting up the flightless birds and other species.
Not sure where it says that in the Old Testament, but it would be an explanation.
edit on 14-3-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 

Could be - although he mentions "young earth creationists" who believe this all happened withing the last 6000 years. Accordingly such "hyper-evolution" would have had to be super fast.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 





I've asked the Christians about that sort of thing and what I usually get for an answer is a moment of silence during which they appear to be thinking of an answer then:

"Oh God brought all those animals to us so we could put them on the ark".

I guess that settles it.

And these are the people who say "evolution is only a theory" !!!!!!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I read that the great flood only affected "their world" not the true world..
Their world was their known region..



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Okay, I gotta reply to this!

First, please don't make fun at the Creationists. We (or at least I) acknowledge that it's tied to our religion, so yes, most of it has to do with belief. I admit to that.

Since I am a creationist, lemme try to explain best as I can. First off, I believe that the flood affected the whole world, not just 'their world'. I don't think Noah made stops for 40 days to pick up every species. Let me quote Genesis 6: 19-20
"19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."
So, just to restate stuff, every kind of creature, though I do assume that some of them did change and alter over the years to give us other types of birds and animals that were not there in the beginning.

What I think is kinda funny (because it only just occurred to me before I responded to this), Is that according to Creation, mankind had only been alive for a few generations (although they lived for hundreds of years). So, as to how he got all the animals, I don't believe they were very far away in the first place. I don't believe there was enough time for the animals to, say, get to the other side of the world. So, I don't believe it could have taken that long to call all the animals back. But, also, I can't find the exact years in Genesis right now, but I do know he was building that ark for over 100 years, which would have given the animals enough time to get to him (and I believe that God called a pair of each animal to him). I mean, I think animals populate the land and sort of continue in a direction, so I think they sort of spread out over time, going further away, but not all at once. So I really don't think they were impossibly far. And again, if it took over 100 years to gather the materials for and to build the ark (I don't think there was any other boat like that ever seen before), I think there would have been enough time to at least get a pair of animals to the ark.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I guess those poor Moa had Noah-where to go.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
A simple question, but one that needs a coherent answer.
In this clip a New Zealand gentleman (not sure on the accent) asks Christian creationists how Noah got the flightless birds in southern countries - like the many species of Moa - onto the ark.
Not sure why He really bothered, because the Maori apparently ate them all eventually.
One could probably ask the same question for many other species too.
OK, our South African species like the springbok could have wandered to the middle-East over land.
But the kangaroo? I doubt it could swim that far.
So, a simple question well put:


I am sorry, what is your point? How did Darwin explain the Galapagos Islands habitat, he didn't even know how new the islands were. Read Kurt Vonnegut. You do not wish a coherent answer, you want one that is not. Sentience is and God is or sentience is not and God is not, pick. What is your question?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ArgentumAquila
 


''So, just to restate stuff, every kind of creature, though I do assume that some of them did change and alter over the years to give us other types of birds and animals that were not there in the beginning.''


Hang on. That means you accept a form of evolution. But creationism asserts that God created each and every species seperately and to be immutable. We can't have it both ways, can we?
edit on 14-3-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Genesis 6:20
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.


shall come unto thee


this small phrase should make it abundantly clear that Noah didn't have to do much besides build the ark.

As far as the animals getting there, who knows. We don't even know what the geography of the world was like at that time so any question regarding how a kangaroo can swim from Australia to the Middle East is irrelevant.

A2D



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Young earth creationists claim the creation happened about 6000 years ago.
We have an excellent idea of how the earth looked 6000 years ago (unless somebody claims that view is a conspiracy of science, which would be interesting).
Then some have replied arguing that God commanded the animals to go to Noah, which really begs the question.
Still others say don't question or deflect by questioning my thread or request for a coherent answer - that is just deflection and implies there is no answer because it is untrue. But thanks anyway!

How many of each animal did Noah take?
Depends, the narrative comes from at least two older sources. there is also a dispute as to how long it lasted, 40 days, or 150 days (Genesis 8:3).
Some verses say a male and a female of every sort.
However, Genesis 7: 1-4 deviates from the Sunday School assumptions: a pair of unclean beasts, but seven pairs of clean beasts, and seven of each kind of "fowl of the air" (not sure whether that includes flightless birds like the Moa or Ostrich).


edit on 14-3-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


First of all, no one said the earth was made 6000 years ago. That is a biased assumption on your behalf.

My stance is this....no one knows the age of the earth.

I agree with this


The earth is 6,000 years old position. The date 4004 B.C. is found in the marginal notes (Genesis one) of many King James Versions. This date was first placed in the King James Version by James Ussher in 1701. He arrived at this date by adding the lengths of the lives of the patriarchs as given in Genesis 5 and 11. In reality, this dating method is not infallible for a number of possible reasons. As far as the Bible is concerned, we can not date the earth with accuracy. It must be remembered that Genesis presents the earth as being created mature or aged (Gen. 1: 20 ff.).



The earth is 4.7 billions years old view. Scientists have employed a number of methods in trying to arrive at the age of the earth. The rate of erosion, rate of salt accumulation in the ocean, and the rate of decay of certain elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium. All of these methods including the "ore method," "meteorite method," and the dating of fossil remains are unreliable and contain many attendant variables.



There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old.


www.bibletruths.net...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Try this and see what you think:

Have a look on a World map or Google Earth. I suspect that Australia wasn`t where it is now back in those far-off days. See the shape of Australia with the Gulf of Carpentaria at the top (North)? Now have a look at the Southern tip of the Indian sub-continent. It is the same shape as the Gulf of Carpentaria. If Australia was actually attached to the Southern end of India it would be much simpler for fauna from there to get to Noah. And as for the Moa: New Zealand would fit nicely along the West coast of Thailand, slotting onto the Southern part of Myanmar (Burma) so the same thing would apply.

Start fitting continents together, ignoring the sea inbetween and you get some interesting things to think about. For instance see how beautifully all of North and South America slots into Africa and Europe? All one massive continent at some point.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 



How many of each animal did Noah take?
Depends, the narrative comes from at least two older sources. there is also a dispute as to how long it lasted, 40 days, or 150 days (Genesis 8:3).
Some verses say a male and a female of every sort.
However, Genesis 7: 1-4 deviates from the Sunday School assumptions: a pair of unclean beasts, but seven pairs of clean beasts, and seven of each kind of "fowl of the air" (not sure whether that includes flightless birds like the Moa or Ostrich).


No contradiction here.

The clean beasts entered by sevens and unclean went by twos. Genesis 6:19 indicates Noah was to take two of every sort. Then four verses later is a supplemental verse informing Noah in a more detailed manner to take MORE clean animals. This was necessary because Noah was to built and altar to the Lord and offer burnt offerings (Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken only two clean animals from which to choose when sacrificing, he would have driven various kinds of animals into extinction.

Seriously, try harder. You're not very good at trolling. My apologetics are rusty but this is still the same ole stuff I always encounter.

A2D
edit on 14-3-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


He didn't need to bring every species of animal. The word species isn't in the Bible and isn't used in the Bible. He just needed to bring some animals for religious and farming reasons and different "kinds" of animals, not species.

Gensis 6:20 "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." God can command the animals as well.

We don't know exactly what the Bible means by "kinds". But we're almost certain it's not the same as species. For example, 1000 different species of birds could be the same kind of bird. So he would of only had to bring 2 birds to represent all those species and not 2000 different birds.

Some people have studied it and put the number of animals as low as 2,000 animals, but found that the Ark could of have at least 20,000 animals on it. The Ark story is actually told twice in the Bible though. Actually just about everything dealing with creation is listed twice in Genesis.

the first version says every animal and people latch on to that, but the first telling may just be a summary. In the second telling he just has to bring animals found on the clean and unclean animal list. Animal List



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

How exactly am I trolling?
I don't know why you felt it necessary to throw a personal insult into an otherwise solid point and opinion.
Pity.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's trolling.

Jeez, apologies that "my assumption" on the earth being 6000 years old according to young earth creationists (based on watching Christian programs, like Carl Baugh) was out by 1000 years, according to your own quote:

here are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old.



edit on 14-3-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
God said he would flood the world. The human race wasn't huge then, so their whole world, wasn't real big back then. It is pretty obivious since it also states they lived all together in Babylon, but I mean this would all be to simple of an explanation, wouldn't it.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Slipdig1
 

No, I think that's quite plausible, and many myths refer to such a localized flood.
However, I'm not sure the Biblical literalists would agree.
They have their own form of "archeology", and argue they have proof of people living with dinosaurs in the Americas and elsewhere before the flood.
It figures that God flooded the whole earth because the wicked humans were everywhere.
But yeah, for me personally that's OK.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Just out of curiosity, how would you explain the fossils of previously living creatures that are found in the Earth's crust?
edit on 14/3/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join