Family Man

Actually, that's the point. If Noah's story wasn't true, that it was stretching the truth, then the question is where else in the Bible has the truth been stretched? Say, the nativity scenes, or perhaps the accounts of the resurrection? In short, how does one determine that one story is an exaggeration of a real event and another something we should base our beliefs on?

All I see you doing is trading one dilemma for another.

SockimOccam

I'm not defending the Ark story, but I'm guessing they're trying to say that all the ice on both poles melted. And some odd catastrophic storm(s) were around for a few months. Not that some extra water suddenly came here out of nowhere and disrupted all of earth's weather systems [ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: SockimOccam ]

emc2

OK- First an issue that I have personally have. The ark was 515 ft long, 50 ft wide, and 80 ft tall. This is based on the biblical measurements of cubits converted. There is no way possible that a pair of every animal in the entire world could fit in a boat that small. Various religions deny the possibility of evolution. Taking that into count, a pair of every animal that exist today would have to have been on that boat (and then that doesn't account for the food issues).

To the post from SockimOccam:
According to the bible, it rained for forty days and nights. It doesn't mention water creeping up as if it were just melted from the polar caps.

I just don't buy it. A boat samller than two football feilds carrying at least one pair (I think we all know the Bible is a little confusing on the numbers there, but we'll use one pair for simplicity) of every animal that exists? I do believe there was an ark, I do believe there was a flood. I do believe there were animals on it. As far as that story goes, that's pretty much it. I believe the Bible to a historic document with lots of holes/questions/contradictions. But hey, after all - it was still written by humans, and you can just about find as many holes/questions/contradictions in todays history books.

Oolon Colluphid

Have none of you read Whatmorecrappe's book? There's all the answers you need!

And you should realise that it wasn't species, it was kinds. So only a few thousand. Amazing thing, this hypermicrevolution. How clever of god to create it!

And all the parasites and pathogens that have humans as their only host (and so had to be on board too) were benign at the time, and have only since evolved into... er... oh...



TTFN, Oolon

joedad

It's obvious that Noah had an advanced genetics lab going amidships. How else to account for all these different critters?

After all the evil/benign critters died and the water went back down the drain hole, Noah went back to his test tubes and cooked up some new critters. And that's why we don't have living examples of the ones we find buried in the rocks.

He did the best he could but he had to fudge.

joe

emc2

To Oolon Colluphid:

It's apparent you haven't read Webster's dictionary. The definition of SPECIES is:

in the same or like form or kind

In fact, SPECIES is latin for IN KIND.

Muad'Dib

To emc2:

Webster's neither contains nor claims to contain the authoritative definitions of scientific terms. There's far more involved in the meaning of words than their etymology.

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

emc2

The point I was making is that "species" and "kinds" in this comparison mean the same thing. If you go so far as to imply that a words etymology doesn't contribute to its meaning, then there is no use whatsoever for language as we know it. Webster's was used for its general understanding of a word. I doubt very seriously most who read the Bible are scientists.

Getting back to the topic, most religious individuals I have encountered are anti-evolution. Based on that and the fact the Bible states that there was a pair of every "kind", the boat still would have had to have been much larger than the dimensions listed above.

Muad'Dib

I'd start out by assuming species and kinds are the same, too: what else makes sense? But we've had more than a few YECs in the Evolution/Creation forum who were presented with the huge number of species that would have to have fit in that tiny ark, and afterwards they usually claimed that kinds are different things. (What are "kinds" supposed to be, then? I don't know. When YECs define the term, which in my experience is rare, it's not consistent from person to person.)

I didn't say that a word's etymology doesn't contribute to its meaning, just that it isn't decisive; current usage takes priority over origin. Sometimes textbooks will define their terms differently than the dictionary's definition, and in that case it's best to go with the textbook; but I agree that the majority of people will not bother to consult both.

emc2

OK - Let's look at that for a minute. The current scientific understanding is a group of like beings that can mate and produce offspring. That still implies that at least two of every type/kind/species (you can choose the word), had to be there. After all, you can't take a goat and a giraffe and get a horse (if that were possible, we'd be back at evolution again, albiet a very extreme case.) LOL

So that again, brings us back to the size of boat, hence it's capacity, vs. number of animals on board. (and then of course, the amount of food it requires to feed all of them over a 40 day span)