Real Science Radio: The Search for Noah's Ark

[Lighthouse]

How did all freshwater and saltwater marine life survive in the same water?

What makes you think they were in the same water?

And do you really think such a thing is beyond the God who brought all the animals to Noah.

And before you argue that the Bible doesn't say that, it does say He brought them all to Adam so Adam could name them; so we know it is not beyond Him and logic dictates that is what He did with Noah.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Yeah, I got that. Did you misunderstand?

Just fat-thumb typing, I'm afraid. Sorry. If there were more animas alive in the past than now, this would undermine the idea that the eg endary Ark would have carried fewer animals than those suggested.

The exclude that which they do not include.

So do they 'not include'?

What do you thin a "kind" is?

An all-purpose Deus ex machina.

Are you aware there was a fairly recent discovery that the "ancient" dog breeds actually came about in the past few hundred years?

Genesis 7 states that all things on the dry land and the birds died. Which excludes those that don't live solely, or at all, on dry land. And the water was on the face of the Earth for less than a year.

And many amphibians have to spend the better part of their lives out of water, as do other aquatic animals such as otters, beavers, etc.

The story makes it clear that only things from the dry land and birds were taken on the ark.

Which would seem to include most of the 350,000+ species of beetles, for example.

God can do anything He wishes to do; He cannot ever become anything other than God, however, but He would never wish to. That is the concept of God, by definition: an omnipotent being.:dunce::duh:

Again, this concept of God you have seems conveniently designed to overcome any logical or evidential problems your assertions encounter. Which is convenient, but scarcely intellectually rigorous.

 

[Lighthouse]

Just fat-thumb typing, I'm afraid. Sorry. If there were more animas alive in the past than now, this would undermine the idea that the eg endary Ark would have carried fewer animals than those suggested.

It did not need to carry that many in order for us to get where we are today. Even if there were more species back then that does not mean there were more kinds. For instance, two canines were all that were necessary. Noah did not need two wolves and two foxes, etc.

So do they 'not include'?

What?

An all-purpose Deus ex machina.

:doh:

Nice cop-out.

Are you aware there was a fairly recent discovery that the "ancient" dog breeds actually came about in the past few hundred years?

No response?

And many amphibians have to spend the better part of their lives out of water, as do other aquatic animals such as otters, beavers, etc.

And?

Which would seem to include most of the 350,000+ species of beetles, for example.

Unnecessary.

Again, this concept of God you have seems conveniently designed to overcome any logical or evidential problems your assertions encounter. Which is convenient, but scarcely intellectually rigorous.

Logic dictates that the Creator can rework His designs as He sees fit, as necessary.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

What makes you think they were in the same water?

Because the only thing now that prevents the homogenization of aqueous salt content are physical land barriers.

And do you really think such a thing is beyond the God who brought all the animals to Noah.

Not without resorting to silly ad hoc explanations, such as an invisible magic barrier or something of the sort.

And before you argue that the Bible doesn't say that, it does say He brought them all to Adam so Adam could name them; so we know it is not beyond Him and logic dictates that is what He did with Noah.

I suppose the three-toed tree sloths of south America swam across the atlantic ocean?

 

[alwight]

I suppose the three-toed tree sloths of south America swam across the atlantic ocean?

The South American tree frog might have hitched a ride? :idea:

 

[Lordkalvan]

It did not need to carry that many in order for us to get where we are today. Even if there were more species back then that does not mean there were more kinds. For instance, two canines were all that were necessary. Noah did not need two wolves and two foxes, etc.

And your evidence would be? Can you identify population bottlenecks in these 'kinds' sone 4500 years ago that would add substance to this speculation? For example, population bottlenecks have been identified in cheetahs, human beings, European bison and northern elephant seals.

What?

More fat-thumb typing. That should have been 'So what do they not include?'

:doh:

Nice cop-out.

How so? 'Kind' seems to mean whatever its invokers require it to.

No response?

I don't know what point you were trying to make.

And?

They would be unlikely to survive a global flood lasting many months.

Unnecessary.

Most beetles are 'dry land' animals, so perhaps you can elaborate why this is unnecessary.

Logic dictates that the Creator can rework His designs as He sees fit, as necessary.

All I see here is the continuing readiness to call on a Deus ex machina to prop up whatever evidentially-lacking or logically incoherent argument is under threat.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Most beetles are 'dry and' animals, so perhaps you can elaborate why this is unnecessary.

Perhaps because the account states that only animals that breathe by nostril were taken aboard. But that raises an even bigger question, how did insects survive the flood then?

 

[Jukia]

How did all freshwater and saltwater marine life survive in the same water?

Goddidit, and God can do anything. Wow, you just will never, ever, learn.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Perhaps because the account states that only animals that breathe by nostril were taken aboard.

It does? I see only references to 'breath of life'.

But that raises an even bigger question, how did insects survive the flood then?

How, indeed?

 

[Letsargue]

I don't see that your citation supports either of these assertions.

(( Assrtions ))??? - What do you think yours is to the Word of God?? - God just said what He said, but you say something that is asserted totally. WELL! - Who cares???

Paul -- 071913

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It does? I see only references to 'breath of life'.

yeah it's in Genesis 7:21-23:

How, indeed?

Some biblical literalists have suggested floating vegetation mats upon which insects dwelled.

 

[Letsargue]

It does? I see only references to 'breath of life'.

How, indeed?

Then with your assertion, Satan didn’t breath Air, and he didn’t!!
You, or somebody stated the amount of creatures including the (( Insects )) was too many, or something like that. ---- There could not have been ( ANY ) Death on the Ark; none at all! – Look at Moses in the Wilderness; - none died, and none got sick, and even their shoes weren’t worn out; And God fed them.

Flies, bees, cats, mice; nothing died. - Even though a house fly only lives a couple days. -- What went in the Ark, came out, or how could GOD be so blind to put flies in there, and what did the maggots eat, or were there a single maggot?? – ( NO )!! There was No need. --- God fed them just as He has ( ALWAYS ) Done, and they all lived, and none died!!

God just said what He said; - believe it ( Or Not )!!

Paul – 071913

 

[Paulos]

Trim that (((moss))) ya hippie !!!

Paulos – OU812

 

[Letsargue]

Trim that (((moss))) ya hippie !!!

Paulos – OU812

Look at this!! - Is that the only Sword you have from ~your ~father???
I cut my Hair and Beard on the day of the Boston Bombing!!!!! - Try again, and judge me by what your foolish eyes ( SEE )!!!

I'm Posting a Thread on this "Noah and his Board Members" in my TOL Blog. - There's too much for just posting!! - You all have missed everything on this dying stuff!!

Paul -- 071913

 

[The Barbarian]

What makes you think they were in the same water?

And do you really think such a thing is beyond the God who brought all the animals to Noah.

And before you argue that the Bible doesn't say that, it does say He brought them all to Adam so Adam could name them; so we know it is not beyond Him and logic dictates that is what He did with Noah.

Problem is, once you start calling in non-scriptural miracles to rescue your new religion, then all religions are equally likely. Something doesn't fit? Just say "it was a miracle."

Traditional Christianity might not be as satisfactory to you, but it has the virtue not needing all those new stories to support it.

 

[Letsargue]

Problem is, once you start calling in non-scriptural miracles to rescue your new religion, then all religions are equally likely. Something doesn't fit? Just say "it was a miracle."

Traditional Christianity might not be as satisfactory to you, but it has the virtue not needing all those new stories to support it.

(( Just where did you read that )), if not in the chronicles of Hell??? -- Hate for Hate I suppose, that's all you can give to respond to!!!

Paul -- 071913

 

[Letsargue]

What makes you think they were in the same water?

And do you really think such a thing is beyond the God who brought all the animals to Noah.

And before you argue that the Bible doesn't say that, it does say He brought them all to Adam so Adam could name them; so we know it is not beyond Him and logic dictates that is what He did with Noah.

I have a two part on my TOL Blog, finishing my part here, unless I receive more, which is likely.

Paul -- 071913

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Problem is, once you start calling in non-scriptural miracles to rescue your new religion, then all religions are equally likely.

There is an interesting psychological phenomena at work here. Something i desire to understand more completely.

Conventionally explanations beget belief, the inverse happens as well. Sometimes beliefs beget explanation. The latter are explanations are conjured out of thin air to patch holes in a belief.

 

[Lordkalvan]

(( Assrtions ))??? - What do you think yours is to the Word of God?? - God just said what He said, but you say something that is asserted totally. WELL! - Who cares???

Paul -- 071913

I wasn't aware that whatever you cared to assert amounted to 'the Word of God'. Can you show me where God said that the animals on the legendary Ark had 'no need of but very little food, and the animals may have been very, very young'?

 

[Lordkalvan]

yeah it's in Genesis 7:21-23...

Right, thanks. My bad. However, there seem to be multiple categorisations of creatures that were doomed to extinction, of which those with 'nostrils' were but one sub-group. Immediately after telling us that these were to be wiped out, it goes on to extend this, as your quotation shows:

'...all that was on the dry land, died.

23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird.'

There doesn't seem to be any exclusion for insects provided for there.

Some biblical literalists have suggested floating vegetation mats upon which insects dwelled.

All very well and fine, but this would require adding to the biblical story and, if insects can survive on floating vegetation mats, so can smaller mammals and birds, which contradicts 'God's Word' that tells us all these were wiped out other than the lucky few aboard the floating menagerie.