The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I did a rough calculation about 1000 pages ago and estimated that the Ark would need to be sized on the order of the largest ships currently buildable by 21st century technology. Somewhere between an aircraft carrier and an oil tanker. Except made using neolithic tools and mostly of wood.

The dimensions in the bible is definately smaller than this? Again, genuine question.

Thanks for the answers, but I'm really not interested in creationists theories or workarounds etc, just simply 'Forgetting about food, carnivores eating others etc, would the arks dimensions have held all the animals?'.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

'Forgetting about food, carnivores eating others etc, would the arks dimensions have held all the animals?'.

No

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

No

Thanks. How much bigger would it have to be?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Thanks. How much bigger would it have to be?

To hold 2 of all land and air species (between 2.5 million and 60 million animals depending on how many species there actually is) plus 2 of every species in the fossil record (millions), and their food and their water and space for them and their children for over a year, and all plant life and bacteria life that would have been destroyed in the flood, along with all the fish that wouldn't have survived a flood?

No idea, such a mammoth engineering project is almost beyond comprehension. At a guess I would say roughly the size of Dublin City (20 square miles)

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Entertainingly, that weird Korean thing that JC (or was it wolfie?) pointed to seems -- as far as I can make out -- to have assumed that the ark was built with wood, but using construction techniques applicable to plate steel.

Unfortunately, their study was too short to go into the fine detail of how Noah managed to weld sheets of wood together.

God did it.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

The dimensions in the bible is definately smaller than this? Again, genuine question.

I have no idea. If the bible stated that the Ark was indeed a 400 meter-long, 100 meter-wide, 10-level mega-canoe, would that actually make it more feasible? Nobody said the guy who wrote genesis couldn't do maths. It's just clear that he knew jack about boats or zoology.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's just clear that he knew jack about boats or zoology.

The idea that it would be possible to actually enclose all land animals on a boat for over a year is debatable, no matter how big the boat actually was. Some animals are notorious for dying in captivity, and this is before you stick them on a boat for a year.

Galvasean

At this rate God would have been better off simply recreating the animals after the flood.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

At this rate God would have been better off simply recreating the animals after the flood.

A thought that crossed my mind in the past. But maybe he wanted Noahs expression of faith. Obviously I'm not sure. Its interesting though. He didn't recreate Man when Adam sinned. He didn't just click his fingers and destroy all humans except Noah and his family etc. Maybe its forsight on Gods part. Maybe he wants the humility in men to trust in him. Satan afterall, is the one who said we don't need God. Maybe Mans faith is a sign of his humility, and it seperates the Adams' (Those who would decide to go it alone) from the Jesus' (Those who realise that God is the best way).

Just thinking out loud really.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

A thought that crossed my mind in the past. But maybe he wanted Noahs expression of faith. Obviously I'm not sure. Its interesting though. He didn't recreate Man when Adam sinned. He didn't just click his fingers and destroy all humans except Noah and his family etc. Maybe its forsight on Gods part. Maybe he wants the humility in men to trust in him. Satan afterall, is the one who said we don't need God. Maybe Mans faith is a sign of his humility, and it seperates the Adams' (Those who would decide to go it alone) from the Jesus' (Those who realise that God is the best way).

Just thinking out loud really.

Isn't it a lot more likely that Genesis is either a fabrication or a metaphor?

Tim_Murphy

A thought that crossed my mind in the past. But maybe he wanted Noahs expression of faith. Obviously I'm not sure. Its interesting though. He didn't recreate Man when Adam sinned. He didn't just click his fingers and destroy all humans except Noah and his family etc. Maybe its forsight on Gods part. Maybe he wants the humility in men to trust in him. Satan afterall, is the one who said we don't need God. Maybe Mans faith is a sign of his humility, and it seperates the Adams' (Those who would decide to go it alone) from the Jesus' (Those who realise that God is the best way).

Or maybe it is a creation myth and should be looked at as such. Indeed one does a great dissservice to mythology by trying to look at it from a literal point of view, and misses the point of myths in the first place.

robindch

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Or maybe it is a creation myth and should be looked at as such. Indeed one does a great dissservice to mythology by trying to look at it from a literal point of view, and misses the point of myths in the first place.

Er, the story of the ark is a myth -- it's a central part of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh which itself filched the idea of a global flood and subsequent redemption from the earlier Babylonian epic of Atra-hasis.

At some point, the Gilgamesh story was acquired by the authors of the OT who changed the name of the main actors and thereby made the story theirs.

Whether they are aware of it or not, modern day creationists are actually believing an ancient Babylonian creation myth which credited a series of largely forgotten gods with the act of creation.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Er, the story of the ark is a myth -- it's a central part of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh which itself filched the idea of a global flood and subsequent redemption from the earlier Babylonian epic of Atra-hasis.

At some point, the Gilgamesh story was acquired by the authors of the OT who changed the name of the main actors and thereby made the story theirs.

Whether they are aware of it or not, modern day creationists are actually believing an ancient Babylonian creation myth which credited a series of largely forgotten gods with the act of creation.

It seems likely they are all describing the same (natural) event, the flooding of the black sea possibly caused by melting ice, each culture putting its own spin on the story to fit it in with their own religion.

Mark Hamill

People should realise that it wasn't two of every animal that was on the ark:

Genesis:7:2,3 wrote:

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.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

It was seven pairs of whatever animals (and birds) where considered clean at the time, one pair of the unclean animals.

Also for those interested, a link claiming the scientific evidence that the ark story is true.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People should realise that it wasn't two of every animal that was on the ark:

It was seven pairs of whatever animals (and birds) where considered clean at the time, one pair of the unclean animals.

Also for those interested, a link claiming the scientific evidence that the ark story is true.

Interesting ... are dinosaurs considered "clean"

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

Interesting ... are dinosaurs considered "clean"

Do they have a completely split hoof and chew the cud? (Leviticus 11:3)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

To hold 2 of all land and air species (between 2.5 million and 60 million animals depending on how many species there actually is) plus 2 of every species in the fossil record (millions), and their food and their water and space for them and their children for over a year, and all plant life and bacteria life that would have been destroyed in the flood, along with all the fish that wouldn't have survived a flood?

No idea, such a mammoth engineering project is almost beyond comprehension. At a guess I would say roughly the size of Dublin City (20 square miles)

Wickie lives in his own evolutionary dream world, completely oblivious to every reminder that species does not equate to the Biblical kinds that Noah had to take on board.

Each kind devolved into various species; and no species crossing the kind barrier.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wickie lives in his own evolutionary dream world, completely oblivious to every reminder that species does not equate to the Biblical kinds that Noah had to take on board.

Each kind devolved into various species; and no species crossing the kind barrier.

You will notice Jimi said

"but I'm really not interested in creationists theories or workarounds etc"

so I replied without your nonsense undemonstrated and made up excuses and work arounds.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

But then that cannot account for the diversity of life on Earth from the 8,000 or so species Creationists claim were on the Ark, so how do you reconcile this idea that a fly cannot evolve to be anything other than a fly, a pig cannot evolve to be anything other than a pig etc etc?

Also given that you put so much weight in observation, do you not find it strange that no one has ever observed the kind of macro-evolution required for the Ark story to be true. In fact given that this is a claim leveled at darwinian evolution, that the changes that evolution say take hundreds of thousands of generations have never been observed so how can we say for certain they even happen. Yet the Ark myth requires that these changes happen in tens of generations, not hundreds of thousands, so this should be easy to observe. But it isn't. It has never been observed, ever.

The whole ironic thing about all this is that if macro-evolution happened at the pace and speed that Creationists claim it must have happened for the Ark story to be true, biologists would be jumping for joy because they could observe macro-evolution within the time period of human study (years or decades) rather than having to go over the fossils of the past.

Yet this isn't what we find. We find that evolution happens but very very slowly. There is no observations of the massive and rapid macro-evolution that Creationists claim happens on Earth and can move 8,000 species of land animal into hundreds of thousands within a thousand years.

There is no such thing as macro-evolution - it is only the unwarranted extrapolation of desperate evolutionists.

The creatures coming from the Ark 'micro-evolved' - that is, developed into many various species.

That it can happen in a short timespan:
Speedy species surprise
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is no such thing as macro-evolution - it is only the unwarranted extrapolation of desperate evolutionists.

The creatures coming from the Ark 'micro-evolved' - that is, developed into many various species.

That it can happen in a short timespan:
Speedy species surprise
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/

To reach the level of genetic diversity we see today, those unfortunate creatures would have to be speciating every eight hours. That takes a big leap of faith, even for someone like you.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You will notice Jimi said

"but I'm really not interested in creationists theories or workarounds etc"

so I replied without your nonsense undemonstrated and made up excuses and work arounds.

My apologies.

Yes, omitting the Biblical term kind and substituting species for it would need a Galactic crusier to hold them all.

Which shows that Creationism is the only explanation compatible with the Biblical account.:)

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

To reach the level of genetic diversity we see today, those unfortunate creatures would have to be speciating every eight hours. That takes a big leap of faith, even for someone like you.

I'd be interested in the maths. Thanks.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'd be interested in the maths. Thanks.

I believe I referenced it roughly 3-6,000 posts back. Knock yourself out.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

Given that the spirit is supposed to be a supernatural thing that you insist exists based on your deity based religion, is the most logical explanation not "God did it" rather than evolution.

Why are you looking to explain how evolution, a natural process, created your supernatural thing, the spirit. Why do you even assume they are connected.

Equally if your god doesn't exist and therefore didn't do anything, then their is little reason to suppose that the spirit is real either, so looking for evolution to explain it is nonsensical.

Either way there is no way of judging the spirit in terms of evolution, nor do you even know if this is required at all.

I know God did it. I know evolution created neither body nor spirit.

What I'm pointing out is that the supposed forces of nature that led to biological evolution must also account for the existence of the spirit, for evolutionists who belive there is a spirit. Of course for those of you who don't, no explanation is necessary.

All you have to do is stop the rest of us from laughing at your doctrinare blindness.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I believe I referenced it roughly 3-6,000 posts back. Knock yourself out.

OK, I know the feeling.:D

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seeing as there is no evidence for the existence of the spirit, why then should reality account for it?

If one really believed there is no evidence for the existence of the spirit, no account should be sought. But as I pointed out to Wickie, such a belief elicits scorn from most people, and just confirms the strength of materialistic delusion.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The chances of a current species of common fly evolving into a current species of butterfly are negligible. If it occurred it would disprove evolution as we currently understand it. What you are asking of evolution in this case is not something it claims to predict.

It is possible that a current species of common fly could develop a longer body and coloured wings. Would that satisfy?



I don't know what this means. What are "genetic parameters"? Do you mean that whilst the genes themselves may vary (producing variation with a species) that no new extra genes may arise in an organism?

I meant a fly evolving into a non-fly, of whatever description. That is what evolution predicts.

Of course you might say flies have reached the optimum development for their circumstances, or some such cop-out. OK then, any organism changing into anything other than its fundamental nature. Extra genes or deleted genes that give extra wings or no wings, for example, are not examples of new organisms having developed.

Galvasean

How BIG was Noah's Ark article wrote:

All of the insects could survive outside the ark. Mote than 35,000 species of worms and nematodes would also survive the flood.

1. I don't see how the insects could avoid drowning.
2. Mote? Way to spell. Also, last I checked worms don't do too well in water. Hence why they come above ground when it rains.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Which shows that Creationism is the only explanation compatible with the Biblical account.:)

Of course if you don't believe the Bible to be true...

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I meant a fly evolving into a non-fly, of whatever description. That is what evolution predicts.

That would be fair enough, until you say:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Extra genes or deleted genes that give extra wings or no wings, for example, are not examples of new organisms having developed.

So, a stable and reproducing population of flies without wings would still be flies? What if another change happens and they get an extra set of legs? Now they're a stable and reproducing population of, by your claim, eight-legged wingless flies. Unable to breed with winged flies. At what point will you consider them to have evolved?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Of course you might say flies have reached the optimum development for their circumstances, or some such cop-out.

You could call it a cop-out or you could call it "genetic drift". I doubt very much if every species of fly is drifting though, I'd say most are undergoing natural selection. Sharks on the other hand, have done little more than change size in hundreds of millions of years. Sharks are a cop-out!

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK then, any organism changing into anything other than its fundamental nature.

What defines fundamental nature? I'd define it by genetics, in which case we've got all the proof you need. Or in a purely morphological sense, a fly without wings would be very much against it's fundamental nature in my books. We've seen that too. Give it an extra pair of legs and it no longer fits the conventional definition of "insect". What we actually have is an eight-legged fruit-walk. At what point are our new species no longer of the same "kind" as a fly?

You're actually asking for us to observe in the lab is a process which takes several thousand years at best. We can use the fossil record and genetic analysis to test if evolution is continuous and large scale, but you discount both.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wickie lives in his own evolutionary dream world, completely oblivious to every reminder that species does not equate to the Biblical kinds that Noah had to take on board.

Each kind devolved into various species; and no species crossing the kind barrier.

But how could a species cross the kind barrier? By what criteria would we measure this? If a fly species loses its wings and gains an extra pair of legs and develops a fused head/thorax it will look a whole lot like a spider, but biologists will not consider it a true spider and I'm quite sure creationists will claim it is still of "kind" fly. Genetic analysis will prove to us that this "spider" is more closely related to flies than spiders but we will certainly be forced to give the organism a new species name, a new genus and perhaps even a new family. If biologists used the term "kind" they would certainly conclude that this organism is no longer a fly-kind.

It is possible for a species to come to resemble another existing species at best. But it cannot become that species. What you are asking for with regard to "kinds" is not possible in evolution (or rather, is of negligible likelihood). We can, in a manner of speaking, observe the emergence of new "kinds", but no organism will ever cross the barrier into another kind.