Noah's Ark - How'd that happen? (genesis, myth, quote, God)

[sanspeur]

Uh, this tread is about Noah's ark...Did you watch those nice videos I posted?

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Uh, this tread is about Noah's ark...Did you watch those nice videos I posted?

I watched some of the video, and it appears they are still pushing the myth that the fossil record shows seperation of species and is orderly. And paleontologis are not finding this at all. You might consider what Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University has to say about this.

And why look to scientific speculation, when you can hear from people who have actually seen the Ark on Mt. Ararat. Also, you can see pictures of the Ark on the link below.

Noah's Ark Photos and Information (http://www.fellowshipinhislove.com/Noahsarkphotos.html - broken link)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

I watched some of the video, and it appears they are still pushing the myth that the fossil record shows seperation of species and is orderly. And paleontologis are not finding this at all. You might consider what Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University has to say about this.

And why look to scientific speculation, when you can hear from people who have actually seen the Ark on Mt. Ararat. Also, you can see pictures of the Ark on the link below.

Noah's Ark Photos and Information (http://www.fellowshipinhislove.com/Noahsarkphotos.html - broken link)

I'm not sure that Mayr had anything to say about the strata that fossils are found in. Perhaps you have the wrong man. He was considered to be the modern Darwin, and was not a paleontologist.

I've seen your fuzzy photos that show nothing definite....You've posted them numerous times

[adryan]

Campbell those pictures dont look like anything :X!!!

[rifleman]

Well, of course the running of the Indy 500 was far more interesting to me than this stuff. Tom refuses to answer my several direct questions about my intentions and my qualifications. I'd have thought that the good folks of Acambero would have at least been nice enough to flip me off officially. No such luck.

Glad you like it this way, Campbell34. It suits your style of denial I must say. Keeps things secret. Frankly, given their lack of response, I know now exactly what I would have found if they'd been even half-ways responsive here and mailed off, care of the Catholic priest at my University, the requested tiny little sample pieces.

They also know exactly what we'd have found.

Next. I'm always available.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by adryan

Campbell those pictures dont look like anything :X!!!

Adryan, welcome to the thread! We're faced here with an ongoing live demonstration of the way that either the hopelessly devoted, or the frantically hopeful minds of the scientifically illiterate, think.

"See! It's right there!" Ed Davis, who was a devoted wanna-find-it Christian, had invested all that effort to in the '50s, to "prove" he'd found The Ark, and in his mind he did. To accurately and objectively report back that he'd only found some odd rock outcroppings would have been too hard to take, I'm sure.

He really REALLY wanted to find The Ark, so he did.

Since then it's been overflown with somwewhat more advanced equipment, and by the dispassionate eye of an X--Ray fluorescence scanner, which simply bounces focused X-Rays off any substrate, and they "fluoresce" with a VERY recognizable and inarguable signature, easily comparable with a known sample for absolute proof of the actual compositional material of the object being scanned.

Easy, huh? And, the beauty of it is that it can be done from waaayyyyy up. You don't have to have a sample from a reticent Mexican village to prove out the hoax!

Today, such austere groups as the U.S. Military, The U.S. Geological Survey, the various Universities that developed this stuff, including mine up in Vancouver, B.C., have all had a lot of experience in this sort of remopre sensing analysis, and something as huge as this rock formation is easily identified and "sampled:.

What have they found? (You know, those ignorant biased scientists off ignoring stuff again). Keep in mind that to come to these conclusions, they spent literally tens of thousands of $$$ to re-task a satellite or high-altitude overflight to do this in the interests of knowledge... Tom [C34] forgets that a lot of scientists and military folk are also Christian, just not subjectively stubborn and intransigent anti-Christians. They wanted to know. They found out.

Everything they looked at was NEVER fossillized, mineralized old wood. There were no "cages". There was a well-explained geological formation made of...

(wait for it...)

Limestone surrounded by basalt. A fold, a recognizable geological formation typical of the intense pressures found in all geomorphology in rugged, "newer" mountainous aqreas.

Well, it's all linked earlier on this thread, in some of my earlier posts.

The response of our last-ditch hero here is to then blather that science ignores what it dosen't want to hear.

When one simply looks at the available evidence coupled with the logic of it all:

1. A known limestone, basalt formation with no other evidence other than the erroneous hopeful firsthand account of a very biased Christian. other devoted Cristian research teams have also gone up theer, but NEVER a fully equipped University based teram of archeologists, geologists, etc. when those types have looked at the avaiable evidence, they always say "No go". Tom (C34) doesn't like that, so he insults all of the professional reearchers in the entire world.

2. The now-known number of species we've atually counted in this world is >30M, and if none of them could have evolved, then that boat had to have at least 600 M animals on board.

3. God would have to have converted them all to be strict vegans to prevent the T-Rexs and Velociraptors and the 500 other kinds of fiercely carnivorous giant lizards, plus the other, oh, 1000 types of mammalian predators (wolves, coyotes, badgers, wolverines, grizz, polars, blacks, siberian, Indian, Bengali and other tigers, cougars, and on until my head hurts) from doin' what comes hereditarily.

Which would be to eat all the other prey animals. The tens of thousdands, BTW, of those types.

(Kinda crowded!, But hey; check out his site again; it's all explained there.)

Or, of course, the literal millions of tons of fresh lettuce that the one old guy, Noah, would have to have brought up from the refrigerated storage walk-in (drive in? railroad in?)

Impossible on it's face.

4. And then there's the issue of keeping them all happy amongst themselves in a rolling, tossing, storm-drenched boat for 18 months.
Ever try to "cage" a T-Rex family and all it's relatives?

Rrrririgggghhhttttt....

6. Where did they get their water supply from, these 600 Million animals? Even if Campbell34 doesn't buy my carefully explained 600M, let's have a mere 500,000 animals then. Impossible, but even if we argue that; how'd he do it?

Impossible.

7. Oh, and yeah, then, on final debarkation ("No rushing, no crowding, please... here's plently of time now to get off the boat, and lots of, oh.... look! all the vegetation's salt-soaked, moldy and dead.! OOoppppsss God's bad...")

So. nothing to eat or drtink ON the boat; nothing left alive or edible OFF the boat.

8. Noah made the call and two of everything came from every corner of the globe. How again?

Plus, any ecologist worth his first lecture notes knows that only two of any species won't cut it reproductively. Those typical two giraffes would be sorta dwarfed by the 40 or so T-Rexs, huh?

"Gobble" Burp. Next snack?

God & Noah would have simply be saving all of them for a sure and certain death. You need about 50 or more of each to ensure survival.

_____________________________________

So, we take it all through slowly, logically and rationally, and come up with:

IMPOSSIBLE.

Not to mention that most thinking rational Christians recognize an allegory for what it's worth.

Others, sadly, not so much.

Well, dream on, Tom.

[rifleman]

In the hopes of further enlightenment, and not wnating to be guilty of C34's ongoing accusations of purposefully ignoring important thoughts, I di read on in one of the recommended links about Arks.

My comments in this font & color.

An example of the clear-minded thinking from this dependable site:

Noah's Ark - Fact not Fiction

They merrily note:

“How many animals were on board the Ark? Skeptics scoff at the idea that the Ark could hold a representation of all land animals. A book The Genesis Flood by Doctors Henry Morris and John Whitcomb states that no more than 35,000 individual animals need to be transported on the Ark to fill the number of needed “species.” Add a reasonable number to include extinct animals and then add more to satisfy the skeptical, and we can assume now that perhaps as many as 50,000 were on board.

Really? With no Evolution allowed, how then would we get to the currrently counted 30M types? We can also discount a few hundred thousand, say, a couple of million even, as sea creatures which would not have been too rudely impacted by a massive change in their aquatic ecology. So that leaves only 28M. We can leave out another 5 million as perhaps "pelagic" birds, alligators, Crocs, penguins, whales or airborne insects, or birds that, somehow, could have stayed in flight for 18 mo (also, actually, impossible, but we'll go with it for now...).

That still leaves us with about 23 Million types. Ooopppssss. Times two for sexual reproduction, times 20 more for ecological reality. WhatzzAT YOU SAY?? Unlikely?

An astounding 920 million individual animals, all cosily on board?

I'll leave it at a mere 600M. You know; to be conservative.

There are very few really large animals and these could have been represented by young ones. Animal experts have estimated the size of the average animal would have been that of a sheep. A railway stock car with three decks can accommodate 240 sheep. (CRAMMED) Three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the Ark’s capacity.

Wow! Such good math skills here!

Oh, so instead of a 2 day trip to the slaughterhouse for a bunch of crammed cattle or sheep whose final destiny is to be killed, they would keep them like that, crammed together, for 18 months? Does anyone here know how many sheep, for instance, they loose in those rail stock-cars en-route? It isn’t insignificant, and they often have to stop to allow them to rest from the relatively flat ride in a railway car. How]s about in a tossing, rolling boat?

And this stupid ringer of a statement that then follows:

“This would leave room for the contents of an additional 361 stockcars. This leaves plenty of room for food and other supplies, plus Noah’s family of eight.“

Really? REALLY? Do we have to work this through even for their way-underestimated 35,000 animals.

There’s 30Million species on this planet, boys. Minimum. Counted, not imagined, like all this other stuff is. Times your minimum of two per each type for sexually reproducing types, but we’ll reduce that all by 50%, down from 60M to only 30M just for fun, even though we don’t have to do that. (There’s an estimated additional 20M species still uncounted on this planet, so….we’ll just pretend they don’t exist, OK?)

So: 60M times 20 per each sex equals (think think think).

How could eight people feed and care for that many animals? A number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. Most all groups of animals have an ability to go into a form of hibernation; and we must remember that God was directing all of this, so He may have instilled into each animal the ability to do this during their confinement on the Ark.

So, again, the GODDUNNIT solution. Why then did He do all of this nonsense in the first place. One can only ask and shake their heads in a definitive...BTW, hibernation requires, according to the observed responses of god’s creatures now, a significant reduction in day length, temperature and a declining day length. And it‘s only good for about 4 months max, not 18.

But again, who’s keeping tabs on all of these little details, eh?

Remember: the thinkers here have absolutely no academic biological training, so what would they know?

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOLKS

But, hey, they go on even further with speculation. Absent any evidence, but it sounds good. That is, if you don't know anything about animals or their behavior or physiology:
During this period all bodily functions would have been greatly reduced, certainly reducing the workload of Noah’s family. If God used His powers to produce the world wide flood and direct the animals to Noah and the Ark, why would He overlook taking care of the animals and Noah’s family in a supernatural manner?”

Why indeed. But my big question now is: why stick with logic to prove logic. I mean, if you're going to default to the "Goddunnit wonder-poof" stuff, why not just do that in the beginning?

Because they've already hung their hat on a literal interpretation; they'd stuck their feet and heads into this one, and had to therefore staunchly defend it on point-by-point issues of possible logic. All of which collapses into a heap of T-Rex dung.

(Which, BTW, we didn't even get around to discussing, nor did they. The Dung Issue. Hmmm...)

And the last thing any IDTs (Intransigent Dogmo-Theists) can do is admit they might be wrong, and that the whole theory is but dust in the wind. That rational thought proves it all to be completely irrational, and that it's...

IMPOSSIBLE.

Of course not. So they invent new hypotheses, all the while claiming that Evolution, which has of course, and in fact, been proven, is "Just a Theory!!"

Well, as far as "theories" go, it's purty good, durn it, having been proven and all.... and fitting all the now-found evidence. All of it.

So; check out that fascinating site I noted above for yourself. I took the time to read it for Tom; he won't reciprocate and read any of the ones I post. For obvious reasons.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by adryan

Campbell those pictures dont look like anything :X!!!

And those who have actually seen the object up close will tell you it is the Ark of Noah, and we have numerous people who have claimed this. We also have a number of high altitude photo interpreters who will tell you the pictures they have seen shows a large manmade object broken in two. And long before those interpreters made those statements, we have earlier accounts from others who first claimed they saw the Ark, and they said the Ark was broken in two. The photo interpreters, confirmed the statements made by those who saw the object up close long before pictures of it were ever taken.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by rifleman

In the hopes of further enlightenment, and not wnating to be guilty of C34's ongoing accusations of purposefully ignoring important thoughts, I di read on in one of the recommended links about Arks.

My comments in this font & color.

An example of the clear-minded thinking from this dependable site:

Noah's Ark - Fact not Fiction

They merrily note:

“How many animals were on board the Ark? Skeptics scoff at the idea that the Ark could hold a representation of all land animals. A book The Genesis Flood by Doctors Henry Morris and John Whitcomb states that no more than 35,000 individual animals need to be transported on the Ark to fill the number of needed “species.” Add a reasonable number to include extinct animals and then add more to satisfy the skeptical, and we can assume now that perhaps as many as 50,000 were on board.

Really? With no Evolution allowed, how then would we get to the currrently counted 30M types? We can also discount a few hundred thousand, say, a couple of million even, as sea creatures which would not have been too rudely impacted by a massive change in their aquatic ecology. So that leaves only 28M. We can leave out another 5 million as perhaps "pelagic" birds, alligators, Crocs, penguins, whales or airborne insects, or birds that, somehow, could have stayed in flight for 18 mo (also, actually, impossible, but we'll go with it for now...).

That still leaves us with about 23 Million types. Ooopppssss. Times two for sexual reproduction, times 20 more for ecological reality. WhatzzAT YOU SAY?? Unlikely?

An astounding 920 million individual animals, all cosily on board?

I'll leave it at a mere 600M. You know; to be conservative.

There are very few really large animals and these could have been represented by young ones. Animal experts have estimated the size of the average animal would have been that of a sheep. A railway stock car with three decks can accommodate 240 sheep. (CRAMMED) Three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the Ark’s capacity.

Wow! Such good math skills here!

Oh, so instead of a 2 day trip to the slaughterhouse for a bunch of crammed cattle or sheep whose final destiny is to be killed, they would keep them like that, crammed together, for 18 months? Does anyone here know how many sheep, for instance, they loose in those rail stock-cars en-route? It isn’t insignificant, and they often have to stop to allow them to rest from the relatively flat ride in a railway car. How]s about in a tossing, rolling boat?

And this stupid ringer of a statement that then follows:

“This would leave room for the contents of an additional 361 stockcars. This leaves plenty of room for food and other supplies, plus Noah’s family of eight.“

Really? REALLY? Do we have to work this through even for their way-underestimated 35,000 animals.

There’s 30Million species on this planet, boys. Minimum. Counted, not imagined, like all this other stuff is. Times your minimum of two per each type for sexually reproducing types, but we’ll reduce that all by 50%, down from 60M to only 30M just for fun, even though we don’t have to do that. (There’s an estimated additional 20M species still uncounted on this planet, so….we’ll just pretend they don’t exist, OK?)

So: 60M times 20 per each sex equals (think think think).

How could eight people feed and care for that many animals? A number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. Most all groups of animals have an ability to go into a form of hibernation; and we must remember that God was directing all of this, so He may have instilled into each animal the ability to do this during their confinement on the Ark.

So, again, the GODDUNNIT solution. Why then did He do all of this nonsense in the first place. One can only ask and shake their heads in a definitive...BTW, hibernation requires, according to the observed responses of god’s creatures now, a significant reduction in day length, temperature and a declining day length. And it‘s only good for about 4 months max, not 18.

But again, who’s keeping tabs on all of these little details, eh?

Remember: the thinkers here have absolutely no academic biological training, so what would they know?

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOLKS

But, hey, they go on even further with speculation. Absent any evidence, but it sounds good. That is, if you don't know anything about animals or their behavior or physiology:
During this period all bodily functions would have been greatly reduced, certainly reducing the workload of Noah’s family. If God used His powers to produce the world wide flood and direct the animals to Noah and the Ark, why would He overlook taking care of the animals and Noah’s family in a supernatural manner?”

Why indeed. But my big question now is: why stick with logic to prove logic. I mean, if you're going to default to the "Goddunnit wonder-poof" stuff, why not just do that in the beginning?

Because they've already hung their hat on a literal interpretation; they'd stuck their feet and heads into this one, and had to therefore staunchly defend it on point-by-point issues of possible logic. All of which collapses into a heap of T-Rex dung.

(Which, BTW, we didn't even get around to discussing, nor did they. The Dung Issue. Hmmm...)

And the last thing any IDTs (Intransigent Dogmo-Theists) can do is admit they might be wrong, and that the whole theory is but dust in the wind. That rational thought proves it all to be completely irrational, and that it's...

IMPOSSIBLE.

Of course not. So they invent new hypotheses, all the while claiming that Evolution, which has of course, and in fact, been proven, is "Just a Theory!!"

Well, as far as "theories" go, it's purty good, durn it, having been proven and all.... and fitting all the now-found evidence. All of it.

So; check out that fascinating site I noted above for yourself. I took the time to read it for Tom; he won't reciprocate and read any of the ones I post. For obvious reasons.

Time is a problem for me that is true, and of course that is the reason I cannot respond or read the numerous posts or the links for each one.

Science will tell us the Ark of Noah story would be impossible, yet in the same breath, they will tell us the universe was once so small we could put it in our shirt pocket. If science can place the Universe in our shirt pocket, I'm sure God could get the needed animals on the Ark of Noah. LOL
And historical discoveries are showing us that the Biblical account is true. Science on the other hand, is leaning heavily on speculation rapped in a white lab coat to give it respectability. Much of what science passes off as science fact, has more to do with spin the bottle.

Putting thousands of animals on something the size of the Ark is one thing. Yet putting the universe in ones shirt pocket, well, I find that a little harder to believe then the Ark of Noah, or a talking snake. LOL

[Lamplight]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Science will tell us the Ark of Noah story would be impossible, yet in the same breath, they will tell us the universe was once so small we could put it in our shirt pocket.

Obviously you didn't read up on Hubble's Law, like I suggested earlier.