freshwater can pool up in saltwater for long periods of time, the amazon river flowing into the atlantic is an example. Pools of freshwater from the river remain fresh out at sea for however long
there are a lot of fish that can survive in both (I had a brackish tank once, I could change it to fresh or salt). fish that adapt from salt to fresh or vica versa are still fish. Just like people adapted to live in the Himalayas are still human.
there's probably more just some examples
the penguins, don't assume all penguins were artic survivors. Today, not all penguins live in Antartica. The Ark only needed to carry a representitive carrying the genetic ability to diversify into artic dwellers.
Antartica split from the supercontinent after the flood.
Given the tens of thousands of species of animals and the millions of different insects that would have had to been on the ark,
wouldn't it have taken a staff of at least hundreds of attendants to feed and clean up after all those critters?
And, where and how did they store all the specialized food for the different animals? Fresh bamboo for the pandas and such?
How did they keep the lions from eating the springbucks, or the crocodiles from eating the potbellied pigs?
For that matter, how did they have enough meat for the carnivores when the animals must have been on board for what, 10 months or so?
Nevermind how long it would take to just gather up all the animals, but how long would it take just to simply herd all those animals on board and get them into their proper stalls?
And wouldn't Noah have had to be sure he had all the bacteria and virus germs on board as well? Were all the people and animals sick as dogs during their boatride to be sure to have those precious disease germs in the new world again?
And then there's that really nagging question, just how loving is a God who'd drown just about everybody and everything 'cause He wasn't happy with the way He'd made them? Sounds maybe just a tad petulant to me...
Given the tens of thousands of species of animals and the millions of different insects that would have had to been on the ark,
wouldn't it have taken a staff of at least hundreds of attendants to feed and clean up after all those critters?
And, where and how did they store all the specialized food for the different animals? Fresh bamboo for the pandas and such?
How did they keep the lions from eating the springbucks, or the crocodiles from eating the potbellied pigs?
For that matter, how did they have enough meat for the carnivores when the animals must have been on board for what, 10 months or so?
Nevermind how long it would take to just gather up all the animals, but how long would it take just to simply herd all those animals on board and get them into their proper stalls?
And wouldn't Noah have had to be sure he had all the bacteria and virus germs on board as well? Were all the people and animals sick as dogs during their boatride to be sure to have those precious disease germs in the new world again?
And then there's that really nagging question, just how loving is a God who'd drown just about everybody and everything 'cause He wasn't happy with the way He'd made them? Sounds maybe just a tad petulant to me...
Like with the bears I said earlier, sets from each kind, not every species. (see the museum thread)
Maybe they kept them in cages, maybe God shut the lions mouth, (happened for Daniel) maybe the carnivores ate watermelons. If we're following the creationsit arguement, all animal kinds were vegetarians originally anyway.
someone else pointed out God sent the animals
bacteria? that's even easier to solve than the insect question
didn't it take 100 years to build the Ark? I'm sure they worked hard to accomplish this. But hey, they lived.
I think modern science is just figuring out how a bumblebee can fly. Should we have informed the bumblebee that it can't fly until modern science figures out that it is okay?
"Maybe they kept them in cages, maybe God shut the lions mouth, (happened for Daniel) maybe the carnivores ate watermelons. If we're following the creationsit arguement, all animal kinds were vegetarians originally anyway."
Yeah, and if "ifs" and "buts" were candied nuts, then we'd all have a Merry Christmas. So we just make it up as we go along, is that it? If God had to make all these accomodations anyway, why didn't he just make all of His evil creations simply vanish and save a whole lot of effort?
And please, leave the old bumblebee canard lay, would you? There seems to be scant evidence that anyone ever said - except in jest - that a bumblebee couldn't fly. And we're quite aware of how it does.
Why do I find it difficutl to believe that you're actually a "grad" student? Is this one of those correspondence schools? Just curious...
It doesn't take a leap of faith to consider that the Ark was possible. How exactly the Ark opporated is an interesting disscussion. Why some people are so eager to disprove its possibility I do not know. You've brought up God's nature and reasoning. I guess if the Ark is impossible God doesn't exist. And if he doesn't exist, why concern oneself with those who believe the Ark was possible?
I guess you want me to prove I'm a grad student? Maybe I don't really exist. Maybe you don't. Maybe Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Who knows.
Perhaps you should ask about the poop problem again?
"It doesn't take a leap of faith to consider that the Ark was possible."
Uh, yes it does. The largest wooden boat ever built was nowhere near the size of the supposed "Ark", and even those ships - some 300 feet long or so, had to have extensive chains and iron rods for reinforcement, just to hold together. A ship the size of the Ark would have had to have some incredible engineering, if it's possible at all. It may well be beyond the capabilities of wood construction.
And so many of the practical issues you haven't touched on, save to say that "Well, if God wanted it to happen, it surely would."
Which, sorry to say, I don't find as much of a defence of some really outlandish ideas. What did Noah do to keep natural enemies from eating each other, how did they find the time to feed and clean up? Where did all that water come from? And where did it go? There's just too much of it to have been held in the atmosphere. But, yes, God could do it if He wanted to. And what would have happened to all the sealife and freshwater life after having been subjected to such a radical change in depth, pressure, salinity and sunlight? Well, God could take care of that too, if He wanted to, yada, yada...
And so could Superman, I guess, at least, maybe with the help of the Super Friends.
And were it not for this fable being recorded in a book that a few Theologians baptised as "holy" a couple of millenia ago, NOBODY would be arguing the point. We'd recognize it for the quaint little morality tale that it is, and that would be that.
And why do I care about it at all? I dunno. Religious tenets tend to be dangerous left unchecked, I guess. Unthinking obeisance to nonsense is an unhealthy way to live, I think, and not just for those who are the "believers"...
I'm not an engineer. I believe I've heard that some ancient structures, The Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, The Sphinx and others, baffle modern engineers in how they were made. Buildings built with huge stones and designed in perfect relation to the stars. Things we know exist because we can see and touch them.
I wouldn't second guess the abilities of "ancient" peoples.
freshwater can pool up in saltwater for long periods of time, the amazon river flowing into the atlantic is an example. Pools of freshwater from the river remain fresh out at sea for however long
I would think that "40 days and 40 nights" would be long enough for it to mix better, and even then, what about things like crawfish and freshwater mussels? How would things that lie on the bottom survive the flood, and even if the fresh water pooled at the bottom for them, wouldn't the pressure of enough water to flood the earth be greater than their bodies could handle?
there are a lot of fish that can survive in both (I had a brackish tank once, I could change it to fresh or salt). fish that adapt from salt to fresh or vica versa are still fish. Just like people adapted to live in the Himalayas are still human.
Some fish do, the majority don't. It's not as simple as people adapting to live in one place or another. It's that some fish require salt water to live and would die in fresh water, while other fish require fresh water and would die in salt water.
the penguins, don't assume all penguins were artic survivors. Today, not all penguins live in Antartica. The Ark only needed to carry a representitive carrying the genetic ability to diversify into artic dwellers.
Auks were arctic, penguins antarctic, but the auks went extinct about 400 years ago. Also, while not all penguins live in Antarctica, they do live in areas close to it. They certainly can't survive in the middle east.
Also, are you saying that penguins evolved from other birds? I thought you didn't believe in evolution?
Antartica split from the supercontinent after the flood.
There is no evidence that this is the case. Either of a global flood or of mankind existing at the time of pangea.
I'm not an engineer. I believe I've heard that some ancient structures, The Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, The Sphinx and others, baffle modern engineers in how they were made. Buildings built with huge stones and designed in perfect relation to the stars. Things we know exist because we can see and touch them.
I wouldn't second guess the abilities of "ancient" peoples.
We are baffled that ancient people built those structures because we've lost the history of how it was done. That doesn't mean that they are so complex that we should consider them supernaturally built or anything like that. They are amazing feats of science and engineering, but the reason we don't understand how they were built is because we've re-developed the solutions to the problems the ancient architects came up with, and our answers are different.
Of course, to compare things like the ark to the pyramids, stonehenge, etc. is wrong because the ark is not around, nor is there any latter version of it. With most of the other things you mention we can at least see how the designs progressed over time from humble origins. There are many pyramids and they are predated by boxy buildings which are predated by mounds. The ark was supposedly such a great leap forward in technology in that it safely kept representatives of all land animals on Earth that it would have required a tremendous infrastructure. It would have been more complex than the best zoos we have today, and the society to build and maintain such a floating zoo would have not been worthy of destruction. At least, I would have expected Noah to make use of the refrigeration or boat-building techniques or something. To go back to the sewage issue, wouldn't the ark's sewer system seem like a good idea to implement in the home he builds after the flood is over?
I would think that "40 days and 40 nights" would be long enough for it to mix better, and even then, what about things like crawfish and freshwater mussels? How would things that lie on the bottom survive the flood, and even if the fresh water pooled at the bottom for them, wouldn't the pressure of enough water to flood the earth be greater than their bodies could handle?
Some fish do, the majority don't. It's not as simple as people adapting to live in one place or another. It's that some fish require salt water to live and would die in fresh water, while other fish require fresh water and would die in salt water.
Auks were arctic, penguins antarctic, but the auks went extinct about 400 years ago. Also, while not all penguins live in Antarctica, they do live in areas close to it. They certainly can't survive in the middle east.
Also, are you saying that penguins evolved from other birds? I thought you didn't believe in evolution?
There is no evidence that this is the case. Either of a global flood or of mankind existing at the time of pangea.
"It is not as simple as people adapting to live in one place or another" Eskimos are and Himalayans are genetically and physiologically more adapted to live in their environments. But they are still humans.
Penguins came from penguins. Always will be penguins. There were tropical penguins. I'm just repeating myself.
Microevolution has been known and understood by people for thousands of years. The macroevolution idea has also been batted around for maybe as long. What changes is every now and then someone like Darwin or Wallace thinks of a way it could've happen. Darwin's idea is being pushed to the side now by evolutionists. But the idea that macroevolution occurred persists in hopes of its proof being found.
Another question you might ask is if lakes were as common in the supercontinent. So were their that many freshwater fish? Who cares. They may have died. Google the freshwater pools and see what you find. How long can they last? Did the mussels and such get thrown to the mountain tops? What haven't you thought of?
Why are you so concerned about disproving the Ark? Evolutionists can't explain exactly how evolution can occur at the genetic level (where it matters). But they still believe it. What did the very first organism eat? There were no other organisms to eat. Did it somehow produce an extremely complicated chloroplast? How did it figure out to reproduce? What pushed it to survive? Look at your own beliefs. See how easily they fall apart. The point of the buildings it that ancient civilizations could do more than we typically give them credit for.
"It is not as simple as people adapting to live in one place or another" Eskimos are and Himalayans are genetically and physiologically more adapted to live in their environments. But they are still humans.
Penguins came from penguins. Always will be penguins. There were tropical penguins. I'm just repeating myself.
No, it's not the same. The different species of penguins can't breed with each other. Chinstrap Penguins are not able to breed with Emperor penguins, for example. It would be like a house cat breeding with a tiger.
Microevolution has been known and understood by people for thousands of years. The macroevolution idea has also been batted around for maybe as long. What changes is every now and then someone like Darwin or Wallace thinks of a way it could've happen. Darwin's idea is being pushed to the side now by evolutionists. But the idea that macroevolution occurred persists in hopes of its proof being found.
While Darwin's theories have been expounded upon (OotS was written in the 1800's) I haven't seen any indication that mainstream science is abandoning evolution or natural selection.
Another question you might ask is if lakes were as common in the supercontinent. So were their that many freshwater fish? Who cares. They may have died. Google the freshwater pools and see what you find. How long can they last? Did the mussels and such get thrown to the mountain tops? What haven't you thought of?
Why wouldn't lakes be common? In any case, why are you asking me questions? I'm not the one believing in the Ark or a world-wide flood. I don't have to come up with rational-sounding explanations for things that appear to be myths.
Why are you so concerned about disproving the Ark? Evolutionists can't explain exactly how evolution can occur at the genetic level (where it matters). But they still believe it. What did the very first organism eat? There were no other organisms to eat. Did it somehow produce an extremely complicated chloroplast? How did it figure out to reproduce? What pushed it to survive? Look at your own beliefs. See how easily they fall apart. The point of the buildings it that ancient civilizations could do more than we typically give them credit for.
I wasn't talking about evolution before your post though, I don't care to rehash that because you're set in your ways and not open to changing your mind. I'm simply asking questions about the ark. If you wanted to be creative, you could have suggested that the penguins floated on top of a huge iceberg that was brought into the ark. You could even claim that the iceberg was used for supplying fresh drinking water too.
I'm not even trying to disprove the ark either, I just want to see what types of answers I can get. In the end, we can't prove whether something ever existed or not if we have no evidence of it today, so this is just an exercise in conversation. I haven't tried to disprove anything, I just want to see rational, provable answers if they exist. The bible is pretty specific about the ark in many ways, but it doesn't mention the refrigeration or sewage, which seems odd.
I'm not even trying to disprove the ark either, I just want to see what types of answers I can get. In the end, we can't prove whether something ever existed or not if we have no evidence of it today, so this is just an exercise in conversation. I haven't tried to disprove anything, I just want to see rational, provable answers if they exist. The bible is pretty specific about the ark in many ways, but it doesn't mention the refrigeration or sewage, which seems odd.
I really don't understand why people think the Ark needed a refridgorator. Seems like unneccesary problems are being invented. The Bible wasn't written to prove the Arks' existence. It was only for that one event, in the past. And I don't see why it absolutely needed a refridgorator. How long have fridges been around?
I haven't heard of too many fossil digs in Antartica yet. Human fossils there would throw a wrench in things wouldn't it? Good idea.
Chinstrap Penguins and Emperor Penguins are still penguins. Still after the same kind. Its hard to breed a poodle with a great dane. Can it not be done? To breed a housecat with a tiger would be difficult. But you could breed a housecat with a bobcat, tiger with a puma, and work the descendents down until you have a cat with both both tiger and housecat genes. Or, just shove a housecats sperm up a you know where. They have crossed tigers with leapords I think, and then its offspring with a lion. That's three.
Icebergs floating, that's a possibilty. Put I don't think the Ark would've carried artic penguins.
There are creation vs. evolution forums if you are interested in more discussion on this topic.
Noah and sons would not have had to store meat for the carnivores on the ark. They could have just scooped a few floating carcasses from the water when it was feeding time.
Now after the ark landed, the herbivores may have had a harder time finding live vegetation among all the stinking rotting foliage that had been under water for 40 days.
The whole scenario is only plausible if you believe in the supernatural, which has no place in science, or does it?
Noah and sons would not have had to store meat for the carnivores on the ark. They could have just scooped a few floating carcasses from the water when it was feeding time.
Now after the ark landed, the herbivores may have had a harder time finding live vegetation among all the stinking rotting foliage that had been under water for 40 days.
The whole scenario is only plausible if you believe in the supernatural, which has no place in science, or does it?
Jerry
I'm wondering if they didn't just feed some of the livestock they had to the carnivores. Can't carnivores go a long time without eating anyway?
Didn't plant life already reestablish itself prior to the ark landing? (The dove brought back an olive branch)
science and supernatural, that's a topic for another thread?
Recommended Posts
Bolshevik
freshwater can pool up in saltwater for long periods of time, the amazon river flowing into the atlantic is an example. Pools of freshwater from the river remain fresh out at sea for however long
there are a lot of fish that can survive in both (I had a brackish tank once, I could change it to fresh or salt). fish that adapt from salt to fresh or vica versa are still fish. Just like people adapted to live in the Himalayas are still human.
there's probably more just some examples
the penguins, don't assume all penguins were artic survivors. Today, not all penguins live in Antartica. The Ark only needed to carry a representitive carrying the genetic ability to diversify into artic dwellers.
Antartica split from the supercontinent after the flood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Why do yoiu think penguins were around then?
And the flood is about the windows of heaven being open.
Water represents the word of God in most places.
There was twos and also sevens.
Since you don't think it's physically possible then why not consider other perspectives of it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And a few more,
Given the tens of thousands of species of animals and the millions of different insects that would have had to been on the ark,
wouldn't it have taken a staff of at least hundreds of attendants to feed and clean up after all those critters?
And, where and how did they store all the specialized food for the different animals? Fresh bamboo for the pandas and such?
How did they keep the lions from eating the springbucks, or the crocodiles from eating the potbellied pigs?
For that matter, how did they have enough meat for the carnivores when the animals must have been on board for what, 10 months or so?
Nevermind how long it would take to just gather up all the animals, but how long would it take just to simply herd all those animals on board and get them into their proper stalls?
And wouldn't Noah have had to be sure he had all the bacteria and virus germs on board as well? Were all the people and animals sick as dogs during their boatride to be sure to have those precious disease germs in the new world again?
And then there's that really nagging question, just how loving is a God who'd drown just about everybody and everything 'cause He wasn't happy with the way He'd made them? Sounds maybe just a tad petulant to me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
hmmm...Bolshevik, interesting info...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Like with the bears I said earlier, sets from each kind, not every species. (see the museum thread)
Maybe they kept them in cages, maybe God shut the lions mouth, (happened for Daniel) maybe the carnivores ate watermelons. If we're following the creationsit arguement, all animal kinds were vegetarians originally anyway.
someone else pointed out God sent the animals
bacteria? that's even easier to solve than the insect question
didn't it take 100 years to build the Ark? I'm sure they worked hard to accomplish this. But hey, they lived.
I think modern science is just figuring out how a bumblebee can fly. Should we have informed the bumblebee that it can't fly until modern science figures out that it is okay?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"Maybe they kept them in cages, maybe God shut the lions mouth, (happened for Daniel) maybe the carnivores ate watermelons. If we're following the creationsit arguement, all animal kinds were vegetarians originally anyway."
Yeah, and if "ifs" and "buts" were candied nuts, then we'd all have a Merry Christmas. So we just make it up as we go along, is that it? If God had to make all these accomodations anyway, why didn't he just make all of His evil creations simply vanish and save a whole lot of effort?
And please, leave the old bumblebee canard lay, would you? There seems to be scant evidence that anyone ever said - except in jest - that a bumblebee couldn't fly. And we're quite aware of how it does.
Why do I find it difficutl to believe that you're actually a "grad" student? Is this one of those correspondence schools? Just curious...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It doesn't take a leap of faith to consider that the Ark was possible. How exactly the Ark opporated is an interesting disscussion. Why some people are so eager to disprove its possibility I do not know. You've brought up God's nature and reasoning. I guess if the Ark is impossible God doesn't exist. And if he doesn't exist, why concern oneself with those who believe the Ark was possible?
I guess you want me to prove I'm a grad student? Maybe I don't really exist. Maybe you don't. Maybe Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Who knows.
Perhaps you should ask about the poop problem again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you don't want to believe in the Ark, this should help you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#caring
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"candied nuts" "Merry Christmas"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"It doesn't take a leap of faith to consider that the Ark was possible."
Uh, yes it does. The largest wooden boat ever built was nowhere near the size of the supposed "Ark", and even those ships - some 300 feet long or so, had to have extensive chains and iron rods for reinforcement, just to hold together. A ship the size of the Ark would have had to have some incredible engineering, if it's possible at all. It may well be beyond the capabilities of wood construction.
And so many of the practical issues you haven't touched on, save to say that "Well, if God wanted it to happen, it surely would."
Which, sorry to say, I don't find as much of a defence of some really outlandish ideas. What did Noah do to keep natural enemies from eating each other, how did they find the time to feed and clean up? Where did all that water come from? And where did it go? There's just too much of it to have been held in the atmosphere. But, yes, God could do it if He wanted to. And what would have happened to all the sealife and freshwater life after having been subjected to such a radical change in depth, pressure, salinity and sunlight? Well, God could take care of that too, if He wanted to, yada, yada...
And so could Superman, I guess, at least, maybe with the help of the Super Friends.
And were it not for this fable being recorded in a book that a few Theologians baptised as "holy" a couple of millenia ago, NOBODY would be arguing the point. We'd recognize it for the quaint little morality tale that it is, and that would be that.
And why do I care about it at all? I dunno. Religious tenets tend to be dangerous left unchecked, I guess. Unthinking obeisance to nonsense is an unhealthy way to live, I think, and not just for those who are the "believers"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Yall need to see Evan Almighty
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm not an engineer. I believe I've heard that some ancient structures, The Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, The Sphinx and others, baffle modern engineers in how they were made. Buildings built with huge stones and designed in perfect relation to the stars. Things we know exist because we can see and touch them.
I wouldn't second guess the abilities of "ancient" peoples.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I would think that "40 days and 40 nights" would be long enough for it to mix better, and even then, what about things like crawfish and freshwater mussels? How would things that lie on the bottom survive the flood, and even if the fresh water pooled at the bottom for them, wouldn't the pressure of enough water to flood the earth be greater than their bodies could handle?
Some fish do, the majority don't. It's not as simple as people adapting to live in one place or another. It's that some fish require salt water to live and would die in fresh water, while other fish require fresh water and would die in salt water.
Auks were arctic, penguins antarctic, but the auks went extinct about 400 years ago. Also, while not all penguins live in Antarctica, they do live in areas close to it. They certainly can't survive in the middle east.
Also, are you saying that penguins evolved from other birds? I thought you didn't believe in evolution?
There is no evidence that this is the case. Either of a global flood or of mankind existing at the time of pangea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
We are baffled that ancient people built those structures because we've lost the history of how it was done. That doesn't mean that they are so complex that we should consider them supernaturally built or anything like that. They are amazing feats of science and engineering, but the reason we don't understand how they were built is because we've re-developed the solutions to the problems the ancient architects came up with, and our answers are different.
Of course, to compare things like the ark to the pyramids, stonehenge, etc. is wrong because the ark is not around, nor is there any latter version of it. With most of the other things you mention we can at least see how the designs progressed over time from humble origins. There are many pyramids and they are predated by boxy buildings which are predated by mounds. The ark was supposedly such a great leap forward in technology in that it safely kept representatives of all land animals on Earth that it would have required a tremendous infrastructure. It would have been more complex than the best zoos we have today, and the society to build and maintain such a floating zoo would have not been worthy of destruction. At least, I would have expected Noah to make use of the refrigeration or boat-building techniques or something. To go back to the sewage issue, wouldn't the ark's sewer system seem like a good idea to implement in the home he builds after the flood is over?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
But the interpretation of the deluge as a worldwide catastrophe is not the only one.
Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh may actually preserve in the course of their dramatic storytelling and
"special effects" a faint historical memory of a catastrophic flood that affected
a large area, located in the basin now occupied by the Black Sea.
There are villages beneath them murky waters.
For those village people - their entire world had indeed come to an end.
Respect your elders you ungrateful, godless whipper-snappers.
They could sure tell a story.
So what are our great, great, great, great, great grandchildren going to end up as
artifacts of our great civilization?
Tattered VHS copies of "Pearl Harbor".
How I sorrow for the children of tomorrow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Ha Danny, yeah, a serious lack of info here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
There's at least a start besides Plato's ideas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"It is not as simple as people adapting to live in one place or another" Eskimos are and Himalayans are genetically and physiologically more adapted to live in their environments. But they are still humans.
Penguins came from penguins. Always will be penguins. There were tropical penguins. I'm just repeating myself.
Microevolution has been known and understood by people for thousands of years. The macroevolution idea has also been batted around for maybe as long. What changes is every now and then someone like Darwin or Wallace thinks of a way it could've happen. Darwin's idea is being pushed to the side now by evolutionists. But the idea that macroevolution occurred persists in hopes of its proof being found.
Another question you might ask is if lakes were as common in the supercontinent. So were their that many freshwater fish? Who cares. They may have died. Google the freshwater pools and see what you find. How long can they last? Did the mussels and such get thrown to the mountain tops? What haven't you thought of?
Why are you so concerned about disproving the Ark? Evolutionists can't explain exactly how evolution can occur at the genetic level (where it matters). But they still believe it. What did the very first organism eat? There were no other organisms to eat. Did it somehow produce an extremely complicated chloroplast? How did it figure out to reproduce? What pushed it to survive? Look at your own beliefs. See how easily they fall apart. The point of the buildings it that ancient civilizations could do more than we typically give them credit for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
i still think i would like to believe in the story of noahs ark
perhaps it was a mirical?
god is god and i would like to believe he can make anythig happen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
No, it's not the same. The different species of penguins can't breed with each other. Chinstrap Penguins are not able to breed with Emperor penguins, for example. It would be like a house cat breeding with a tiger.
While Darwin's theories have been expounded upon (OotS was written in the 1800's) I haven't seen any indication that mainstream science is abandoning evolution or natural selection.
Why wouldn't lakes be common? In any case, why are you asking me questions? I'm not the one believing in the Ark or a world-wide flood. I don't have to come up with rational-sounding explanations for things that appear to be myths.
I wasn't talking about evolution before your post though, I don't care to rehash that because you're set in your ways and not open to changing your mind. I'm simply asking questions about the ark. If you wanted to be creative, you could have suggested that the penguins floated on top of a huge iceberg that was brought into the ark. You could even claim that the iceberg was used for supplying fresh drinking water too.
I'm not even trying to disprove the ark either, I just want to see what types of answers I can get. In the end, we can't prove whether something ever existed or not if we have no evidence of it today, so this is just an exercise in conversation. I haven't tried to disprove anything, I just want to see rational, provable answers if they exist. The bible is pretty specific about the ark in many ways, but it doesn't mention the refrigeration or sewage, which seems odd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I really don't understand why people think the Ark needed a refridgorator. Seems like unneccesary problems are being invented. The Bible wasn't written to prove the Arks' existence. It was only for that one event, in the past. And I don't see why it absolutely needed a refridgorator. How long have fridges been around?
I haven't heard of too many fossil digs in Antartica yet. Human fossils there would throw a wrench in things wouldn't it? Good idea.
Chinstrap Penguins and Emperor Penguins are still penguins. Still after the same kind. Its hard to breed a poodle with a great dane. Can it not be done? To breed a housecat with a tiger would be difficult. But you could breed a housecat with a bobcat, tiger with a puma, and work the descendents down until you have a cat with both both tiger and housecat genes. Or, just shove a housecats sperm up a you know where. They have crossed tigers with leapords I think, and then its offspring with a lion. That's three.
Icebergs floating, that's a possibilty. Put I don't think the Ark would've carried artic penguins.
There are creation vs. evolution forums if you are interested in more discussion on this topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Noah and sons would not have had to store meat for the carnivores on the ark. They could have just scooped a few floating carcasses from the water when it was feeding time.
Now after the ark landed, the herbivores may have had a harder time finding live vegetation among all the stinking rotting foliage that had been under water for 40 days.
The whole scenario is only plausible if you believe in the supernatural, which has no place in science, or does it?
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm wondering if they didn't just feed some of the livestock they had to the carnivores. Can't carnivores go a long time without eating anyway?
Didn't plant life already reestablish itself prior to the ark landing? (The dove brought back an olive branch)
science and supernatural, that's a topic for another thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.