1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Noah's Ark Confusion

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Lori, Sep 23, 2004.

  1. danrusdad

    danrusdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hear they could only use flood lights to see on the ark too...

    :rolleyes:
     
  2. Jacob Webber

    Jacob Webber New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
     
  3. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Hi Lori,

    Yes, you are right that the concept of one pair of each kind of animal is much more common that seven of each kind of animal. And since there is much emphasis on the pairing of animals, Gen. 7:2 is often interpreted to mean that there were seven pairs of the clean animals. There is no explanation in the Bible as to why more clean than unclean animals were required, but as another poster pointed out, they were probably used to feed Noah and his family and the carnivorous animals on the Ark. And after the flood, it would continue to be desirous to have many clean animals for food and sacrifice.

    Gen. 7:2. "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; (NASB, 1995)

    But there is much more that is often overlooked in these parts of Genesis. The Law had not yet been given, so how did Noah know which animals were clean and which were unclean?
     
  4. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    A friend of mine, who is a professor of Biology at a prestigious university, calculated the number of species of beetles that would have to have been on the ark to account for the number of species presently alive (well over one million). He then calculated the weight of those beetles and the weight of the food that would be necessary to sustain them for the time on the arc. Lastly, he calculated the weight of the water that would be displaced by the ark, and he found that the weight of the water would be much less than the weight of the beetles and their food. Therefore, the ark would have sunk before all the beetles and their food was loaded. And this assumes, of course, only one pair of each species of beetle.

    But as I understand Genesis, there were also lions and tigers and elephants. The weight of all of these animals plus their food would sink the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan before they all got loaded. The bottom line is that Doctors Morris and Whitcomb either did not know their biology or they did not know their math. The book, The Genesis Flood, belongs in the category of science fiction rather than Biblical studies.
     
  5. danrusdad

    danrusdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except, Craig, the Lord didn't tell Noah to bring 2 of every SPECIES onto the ark. This is a strawman thrown up by people who have probably never even read the biblical account. "Species" is a MAN-IMPOSED system of classification and therefore is irrelevant to which animals were brought on the ark.

    Further, insects were not included either. Only those who had "breath in their nostrils" as Gen 7 indicates.

    Since you seem to know about how much all the animals would have weighed, perhaps you'd like to share with everyone the specifics?

    The charge that there were too many animals, or not enough food, or too much weight is bogus. Woodmorappe thouroughly destroys ALL of these arguments and more in his work.
     
  6. blackbird

    blackbird Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    4
    Let me give you a "for instance" here! Thinking with the limited mind one will be led to believe, say, when Noah got to loading up all the K-9's onto the ark that Noah started loading 'um up---

    two of each kind

    2 Pitbulls
    2 Collie dogs
    2 Austrailian Shepherd dogs
    2 Chocolate Labs
    2 Chuwawah's

    Etc.

    Which would account for a lot of dogs

    When in all actuality---all Noah had to have on the ark was Mr.& Mrs. Wolf

    Same way with horses and cats and thousands of other species that have crossed themselves thousands and thousands of times.
     
  7. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    This statement is contrary to fact. The designation "species" is NOT an artificial designation imposed by man. A species is a population of plants or animals with a common genotype whereby they can inner breed without a loss of fertility among the offspring. When a horse is bred with a donkey, the result is an infertile mule. Horses and donkeys are, therefore, different species. Of course it does not matter is you use the word species, or kind, or type, or some other word—horses and donkeys are different enough that they can not interbreed without a loss of fertility among their offspring. God knew that, and made sure that every kind of animal got aboard the ark.

    These statements are also contrary to fact. ALL insects, including beetles, were included:

    Gen. 6:19. "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every {kind} into the ark, to keep {them} alive with you; they shall be male and female.
    20. "Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every {kind} will come to you to keep {them} alive. (NASB, 1995)

    Gen. 7:14. they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds.
    15. So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. (NASB, 1995)

    Gen. 7:14. Hemah wkal- hachayah lmiynahwkal- habhemah lmiynah wkal- haremes haromes `al-ha'arets lmiynehuw wkal- ha`owp lmiynehuw kol tsipowr kal-kanap.
    15. Wayabo'uw 'el- Noach 'el- hatebah shnayimshnayim mikal- habasar 'sher- bow ruwach chayiym. (Masoretic Text using Roman Characters)

    This statement is not only contrary to fact, it is contrary to common sense.

    This statement, as are all the others, is contrary to fact. The ark was not large enough to house even one percent of the animals and their food. This is a proven fact, regardless of what some uninformed individuals have claimed to be the case.

    One more point. The quantity of water that it would have taken to cover the entire earth up to the height of the tallest mountain would have been so heavy as to cause the earth to loose its orbit. Anyone who attempts to defend the story of Noah’s Ark based on science MUST take into account all the data, and when one does so, one finds that science proves the story of Noah’s ark to be inaccurate.

    Do you still disagree? If enough fresh water was added to the oceans to make them deep enough to cover the highest mountain, the salinity of the resulting ocean would have been reduced so severely that it would have destroyed the ecosystems of the ocean, resulting in the death of most of the life in the ocean. Of course some have argued that Noah constructed aquariums to house the ocean life and brought these aquariums aboard the ark. But, of course, all the ships that have ever sailed could not hold that about of weight.

    Oh, and don’t forget about all the fresh water fish that can not survive with salt in the water. More aquariums? You can believe that if you want to.
     
  8. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    No, all dogs are one species. If they were not, infertility in their offspring would have resulted. Didn’t anybody study biology in high school? Did you all ditch the class like Morris did? :D
     
  9. PowerndBlood

    PowerndBlood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR, i believe the flood happened just as the Bible says.

    Craig said "One more point. The quantity of water that it would have taken to cover the entire earth up to the height of the tallest mountain would have been so heavy as to cause the earth to loose its orbit."

    How much weight exactly does it take to make the earth loose it's orbit, i thought the earth was already hanging on nothing?

    Craig also said "Oh, and don’t forget about all the fresh water fish that can not survive with salt in the water. More aquariums? You can believe that if you want to."

    If i'm not mistaken there are still fresh water streams in the ocean at this time.

    FTR, there are qualified scientists who do believe that the flood took place.

    Bottom line is that the Bible has yet to be proven wrong by science despite their best efforts, strange isn't it? ;)

    Come on Craig you should know this.
     
  10. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    It is, but if its speed of rotation slows or its weight increases, the orbit will decay and the earth will fall into the sun.

    At this time, there are some. However, during such a cataclysmic event as the flood, there could not have been any.

    No, there are not. A Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering or basket weaving does not qualify anyone to evaluate the evidence for a world-wide, cataclysmic flood. And there is not even one professor of geology or biology teaching at a major university anywhere in the world who has said that he believes that such a flood ever took place.

    If such a flood did take place, it is out of the scope of science to understand it, and science, therefore, needs to be left out of the discussion if one wants to argue for the flood. Anyone who brings science into the discussion in defense of the flood can easily be proven wrong. This is not to say, of course, that the flood never happened or that the story of Noah’s Ark is a myth.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. danrusdad

    danrusdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is still a man-made definition and not the biblical one given as you know, so the point is moot.

    This assumes that the species of horses and mules we have today are exactly the same as the species that would have been around during the flood if both existed then. ~4400 years worth of speciation is more than enough for a once-fertile horse kind to de-volve into infertile species.

    Funny, none of the verses you quote say anything about beetles...

    In fact this shows my point:

    15. So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all FLESH in which was the BREATH of life.

    Please offer the class your statistical analyses of how many animals were on the ark, how much food was needed, how much room was needed, etc., etc., etc.

    John Woodmorappe is hardly an uninformed individual. Have you ever actually read his work?

    Again this is based on a non-biblical ASSUMPTION. Namely that the geography of the earth as we know it is the same as it would have been before the flood. You've stacked the deck and set up a straw man.

    Yes, because you haven't disproven anything.

    Same unbiblical assumption supporting the whole argument...

    Oh, and don't you forget that science has shown that both fresh and salt water fish can adapt to other environments. And that there were no salt water oceans before the flood. And that the requirement for some fish TODAY to need salt does not mean that their ancestors did. Speciation and loss of genetic traits does occur.
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    No, this is not a matter of the definition of words. It is a matter of scientific fact. Any species that was not on the ark would have drowned, therefore all species that we now have MUST have been on the ark! (If they were not on the ark, where did they come from? Do you believe in some super-fast evolution where lions turned into tigers and monkeys turned into people overnight?)

    Obviously you have not studied microgenetics, or even high school biology. Horses are a species; mules are not—they are a hybrid. Horses did not dissolve into mules. And 4400 years is not enough time for lions to evolve into tigers. The genotype of both the lions and tigers we have today is almost identical to that of lions and tigers that lived 10,000 years ago. And this is the case of more than 99.99% of all species whose genotypes have thus far been studied.

    Your statement is false, and that is NOT funny!

    Gen. 6:19. Uwmikal- hachaymikal- basar shnayim mikol tabiy' 'el- hatebah lhachyot'itak zakar uwnqebah yihyuw.
    20. Meha`owp lmiynehuwuwmin- habhemah lmiynah mikol remes ha'damah lmiynehuwshnayim mikol yabo'uw 'eleyka lhachyowt. (Masoretic Text using Roman Characters)
     
  13. PowerndBlood

    PowerndBlood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig, you confuse me my friend.

    "This is not to say, of course, that the flood never happened or that the story of Noah’s Ark is a myth."

    Covering all your bases, pretty slick;)
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Those who appeal to science to defend the story of Noah's Ark are barking up the wrong tree and making Christians look like fools. If one chooses to defend it, one must defend it from the Scriptures.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. PowerndBlood

    PowerndBlood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig, please don't make me have to take the time to hunt for and find scientists that do believe that a flood happened.

    IF science can ever prove the Bible false, i will throw it in the trash were it would belong.

    You have my word on that!!!

    You have it entirely backwards, christians that do not believe a book that they are trusting their souls with, look like the biggest fools i can think of. One minute believing it and the next one not.

    99% truth = 100% LIE
     
  16. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    The Bible is true and science will never prove it to be false.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Lori

    Lori New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    0
    But gentlemen you are missing the biggest point of all....

    WHERE DID MOSQUITOES COME FROM??!! :eek: [​IMG] :D

    Are they a curse, genetic mutant (think x-men)? Maybey they're idbd demons that attack the ones that God loves the most [​IMG] [​IMG] ! They go after me in droves so therefore I conclude that they are evil. :rolleyes: :D

    I always thought when He said creeping thing, that included the insects, and since they're so tiny maybe they wouldn't take up so much space. As for the other animals that were on board, couldn't it be possible that God put them into an early hibernation? Maybe even put some of the ones that don't necessarily(sp?) hibernate into hibernation too? Then they would need lots less food. On top of that we have these ice caps that maybe somehow were melted and were enough to have caused the earth to be flooded. It could also maybe (layperson hypothesis) be possible that the continents did not look the same as they do now, think pangia/pangea? Maybe the water from the flood somehow eroded parts of the land that was underwater and that caused mountains. Oh wait did the Bible say/allude that there were mountains before the flood...if so then just ignore that whole erosion thingy. Lastly I don't know how to say it so I'll rely on one of y'all to be able to understand and hopefully be able to articulate the fact of the mass equaling the same no matter what it's form is. Therefore something along those lines maybe the earth wouldn't have gotten heavier.

    Well I don't know if any of that made any sense or not, but y'all are a pretty educated crowd on this board so I know y'all will be able to understand what I am trying to say.

    azwyld
    <*}}}><
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Hi Lori!

    Welcome back to your thread. I believe that I have already addressed most of your points, except for the hibernation thing. The problem with that idea is that there is nothing in the story of Noah’s Ark to suggest that supernatural events took place. God could easily enough have killed off the people without the need for an ark to save the animals. But He did not. The story tells us that God caused a flood to cover the entire earth (with no suggestion that the earth has changed since then) and that at least two of every kind of animal was taken aboard the ark and thereby were saved from the water.

    The important thing about the story is that it has a New Testament application:

    1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
    1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
    1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Poor at math, methinks.

    99% truth = 99% truth
     
  20. PowerndBlood

    PowerndBlood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    methinks you can think what you wish, but it is true to me that if a person "almost" tells the truth it is still a lie.

    Most lies have truth in them, just as all cults have bible truth somewhere in them, the good news is that the truth has no lies at all.

    *edited to say

    Dr. Bob, after looking at your post again i see your point.

    I should have said 99% truth 1% lie = 100% lie, hopefully most could get what i meant, sorry.
     
Loading...