# the flood and the animals

1. xFamily
2. » General
3. » the flood and the animals

Tue 26 Jun, 2007 07:51 am
the flood and the animals
there are approx. 31,000 recorded speicies of animals (fish not included)

all the animals boarded the ark in one day (24 hours max)

31,000 speicies x 2 (one male one female) = 62,000

the goal
board 62, 000 animals in a boat in 24 hours.
(sounds like a job for the myth busters)

24 hours in a day 62,000 divided by 24 = 2583.333

60 minutes to an hour 2583.33 divided by 60 = 43. 0555

noah would have to board 43 animals per minute into the ark to succeed

any opinions? and im not too great at math so feel free to correct any errors

WalkerJ 1

Tue 26 Jun, 2007 09:23 am
I can't vote on this poll. It doesn't have the option I would select.

Yes, historical records prove that much of the Bible is made up, but there are many parts that are historically accurate.

alieninside

Tue 26 Jun, 2007 09:25 am
actually i gave the option ' some is accurate and some is made up' but it didnt show it =)

Thorwald 1

Tue 26 Jun, 2007 03:20 pm
alieninside wrote:
there are approx. 31,000 recorded speicies of animals (fish not included)

Uh, no. There are quite a lot more than that and we are finding new ones every day. There are currently about 1.5 to 1.8 million named species, but it is estimated that the actual number of species in the world ranges from 5 to 10 million. Some scientists put it as high as 100 million. (note: See 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals for more information.)

WalkerJ 1

Tue 26 Jun, 2007 03:36 pm
Here's a better breakdown of the number of named species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Numbers_of_species

alieninside

Wed 27 Jun, 2007 07:21 am
even better for prooving my point =)

Anonymous

Wed 27 Jun, 2007 02:25 pm
Besides the amount of time it would take to load up a pair of each species on the ark, there's another problem with the math: Two of a kind generally do not share enough genetic diversity to ensure the survival of an entire species. When we get down to where there's only one male and one female elephant alive on the planet, the species is essentially extinct.

m 2

Wed 27 Jun, 2007 11:17 pm
Besides that, there isn't enough water to cover all the earth. Where did all the (what would have been necessary) extra water go?

Thorwald 1

Thu 28 Jun, 2007 01:07 am
All of your questions have already been debated for hundreds of years by "literalists" vs. the more practical kind. See Biblical literalism and the Ark for a summary of this.

My opinion is that most, if not all, stories in the Bible are simply silly, archaic, mythologies and it is hysterical than anyone takes any of it literally today. No more silly and stupid than grown adults believing that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy really do exist and we should be good so they will bring us presents (or take us to Heaven . . .).

winter 1

Sat 21 Jul, 2007 11:38 pm
WalkerJ wrote:
I can't vote on this poll. It doesn't have the option I would select.

Yes, historical records prove that much of the Bible is made up, but there are many parts that are historically accurate.

Just saw this thread. I'd have to second the above. There are historical records and poetry and all sorts of whatnot. Reason: The Bible is an over-translated, over-copied, compilation of books from known and unknown authors. Well, of course there are other opinions. That is mine. It's really quite easy to see when reading it.

Also, I don't think anyone mentioned this, but, isn't it possible for all the current species to have come from a more basic selection of species? Or is this not possible? For example: breeding. Isn't that kind of the idea?

Thorwald 1

Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:31 am
winter wrote:
Also, I don't think anyone mentioned this, but, isn't it possible for all the current species to have come from a more basic selection of species? Or is this not possible? For example: breeding. Isn't that kind of the idea?

No. The definition of "species" is two organisms able to produce viable offspring. The "viable" part is key. You can breed a lion and a tiger, but their offspring are infertile (i.e., not viable). Thus, lions and tigers are two separate species.

Obviously, all species originate from a common ancestor, and that is what evolution is all about. The previous ancestor was not necessarily "more basic", it just had different selection pressures on it. Humans and chimpanzees are 98.77% identical at the DNA level (and we can calculate this _exactly_ because we have now sequenced the genomes of these two different, but clearly related, species). You can not "breed" humans and chimpanzees.

The creationists and IDers claim that "macroevolution" can occur and does not contradict their "theory" (not really a scientific one, since we can not test it). However, if we can (and we do) produce a Tree of Life showing how all species are related and how they all point to a common ancestor, then it shows that the theory of evolution is amazingly (and quite elegantly) good at describing our observations.

The creationists can not have it both ways. Either Noah took all 10 million+ species on board his little ship and evolution has not occurred since then (which they do claim), or the story of Noah is nothing but a demonstrably false mythology.

mrs reaper

Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:35 pm
something NONE of you hae thought of......... maybe just maybe santa claus and the tooth fairy helped noah to load the millions of animals on????!!!!!!!!! no more believable than the bible!!!

winter 1

Sun 22 Jul, 2007 04:56 pm
Thorwald wrote:

The creationists can not have it both ways. Either Noah took all 10 million+ species on board his little ship and evolution has not occurred since then (which they do claim), or the story of Noah is nothing but a demonstrably false mythology.

I guess another interesting thing is that a lot of cultures have this story. So either we have a common story teller, or a common history. Or it could just be chance. Though, I think that is unlikely.

Thorwald 1

Sun 22 Jul, 2007 06:22 pm
winter wrote:
I guess another interesting thing is that a lot of cultures have this story. So either we have a common story teller, or a common history. Or it could just be chance. Though, I think that is unlikely.

That is not the point. The Christians claim that the Bible literally (as in the Word of God) meant that the _entire_ earth was covered with water and that Noah took _all_ non-aquatic life aboard his boat, thus saving them in their form then as they appear today. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence for this story, not to mention that there is no where near enough water on earth to cover the entire planet all the way up to the very top of mountains (including Mt. Everest).

Obviously, the Jewish mythology of the Great Deluge borrows from early mythologies. That does not lead to it being any more true. There were many peoples, religions, histories, and mythologies alive and well for the several thousand years it took for the Old Testament to take shape around the Middle East. It is completely reasonable that they borrowed many times over from each other through conquest after conquest.

Also note that floods are a very common and natural phenomenon. There is scientific evidence that the Black Sea was greatly enlarged (to its current size) through a dramatic flood (breaking through the Bosporus) several thousand years ago. Also note that the Black Sea is not far from Mt. Ararat. There was a previous, and much larger possible flood that created the Mediterranean. Although, the evidence for this puts it several million years ago.

m 2

Sun 22 Jul, 2007 11:50 pm
A good read on the subject is Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others.

winter 1

Mon 23 Jul, 2007 07:46 am
Thorwald wrote:
winter wrote:
I guess another interesting thing is that a lot of cultures have this story. So either we have a common story teller, or a common history. Or it could just be chance. Though, I think that is unlikely.

That is not the point.

With a simple sentence my point disappears. How interesting.

Anyway, I was trying break it down to two options.

Never mind though. We can have a debate. Yay!

You have taken the side of "absolutely zero scientific evidence for this story." So, even though I really have little idea of what I am talking about, I will take the other side - "there might be some scientific evidence."

Having not done any research, can you wave away "sea shells on the top of mountains?" Oh right, plate tectonics. Hmmm... perhaps that is how water would be able to cover the entire planet. If all the land was level, wouldn't there be enough water to cover it?

OK, I'll try to find something on the Internet that some scientist wrote instead of just try an imagine something. Remember, all I need to prove is that there may be some scientific evidence, since you stated that there is "absolutely zero." Hrmmm... google.com... here this looks good enough to chew on:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbayint.html

Is that at least a bit possible of scientific evidence?

Anonymous

Mon 23 Jul, 2007 07:59 am
Quote:
The Christians claim that the Bible literally (as in the Word of God) meant that the _entire_ earth was covered with water and that Noah took _all_ non-aquatic life aboard his boat, thus saving them in their form then as they appear today.

Not ALL Christians make a literal interpretation of scripture, particularly the Genesis texts. It would be more precise to say, "Fundamentalist Christians claim that the Bible literally meant..."

When you divide all the Christians in the world up into two groups--those that make a literal interpretation of the Genesis texts and those that do not--I think you'll see that the literalists are in the minority. I say this because Catholics, Orthodox, mainline Protestant churches (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Prebyterians, Congregationalists) and some Restorationist groups do not interpret scripture literally. Literalists, which are primarily the anaBaptist churches, are a vocal minority.

Thorwald 1

Tue 24 Jul, 2007 12:03 am
winter wrote:
Having not done any research, can you wave away "sea shells on the top of mountains?" Oh right, plate tectonics. Hmmm... perhaps that is how water would be able to cover the entire planet. If all the land was level, wouldn't there be enough water to cover it?

Yes. Plate tectonics would explain the seashells on top of some mountains. Of course, we need millions of years of uplift for this to occur, not the several thousand the literalists claim.

I stand by what I wrote: As far as I know, there is zero scientific evidence to support the claim by literalists that exactly how the flood is explained in Genesis (and exactly that many years ago) ever took place. I am perfectly happy to be proven wrong here. However, once you allow for millions of years, the creationists can no longer claim that the Bible is the absolute, infallible Word of God. The reason for this is that the Bible clearly states the number of generations since the flood all the way up to the birth of Jesus and that is less than three thousand years.

Anyway, I am not going to try to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. There are plenty of scientific sources to back up what I have been arguing here.

Your "you are typing with your ass" comment let me know where this debate is headed and, as such, I shall retire from it.

BE wrote:
Not ALL Christians make a literal interpretation of scripture, particularly the Genesis texts. It would be more precise to say, "Fundamentalist Christians claim that the Bible literally meant..."

I agree. Everything I have been arguing for has been against the claims of the literalists (or fundamentalist or creationist) and I have stated such at the outset.

winter 1

Tue 24 Jul, 2007 06:28 am
Thorwald wrote:
winter wrote:
Having not done any research, can you wave away "sea shells on the top of mountains?" Oh right, plate tectonics. Hmmm... perhaps that is how water would be able to cover the entire planet. If all the land was level, wouldn't there be enough water to cover it?

Yes. Plate tectonics would explain the seashells on top of some mountains. Of course, we need millions of years of uplift for this to occur, not the several thousand the literalists claim.

I stand by what I wrote: As far as I know, there is zero scientific evidence to support the claim by literalists that exactly how the flood is explained in Genesis (and exactly that many years ago) ever took place. I am perfectly happy to be proven wrong here. However, once you allow for millions of years, the creationists can no longer claim that the Bible is the absolute, infallible Word of God. The reason for this is that the Bible clearly states the number of generations since the flood all the way up to the birth of Jesus and that is less than three thousand years.

Anyway, I am not going to try to convince you of anything. Believe what you want. There are plenty of scientific sources to back up what I have been arguing here.

Your "you are typing with your ass" comment let me know where this debate is headed and, as such, I shall retire from it.

BE wrote:
Not ALL Christians make a literal interpretation of scripture, particularly the Genesis texts. It would be more precise to say, "Fundamentalist Christians claim that the Bible literally meant..."

I agree. Everything I have been arguing for has been against the claims of the literalists (or fundamentalist or creationist) and I have stated such at the outset.

Wait a moment.

You don't get it. Do you? Can you catch a hint? Do you have to put your assumptions on others that question you?

Don't you for one moment assume that the "Holy Bible" is mine. You said "your bible." This statement is very annoying for me. Hence the crass comment. I feel that it is mild compared to your assumptions about me. Perhaps I should have requested an apology. Catching on? Can you please apologise? I would appreciate it. It's quite insulting the way you assume things like that.

I am not debating anything about the Bible. I only decided to debate if there was perhaps some evidence of a global flood that:
a. "the _entire_ earth was covered with water"
b. "Noah took _all_ non-aquatic life aboard his boat"

"b" is also, AFAIK, not really what it says in the story.

I have no idea about literalists and all the big bag of assumptions you bring with you. I too carry around somewhat of a library. It is probably not as organised as your is. I like to take far out and extreme statements and try to dissolve them. You know what I mean? Things like "absolutely" and "zero" and "totally" kind of ring little alarm bells of extremism. It just doesn't seem very well balanced. I think if you presented a lot of ideas and concepts in a more balanced and unbiased manner they would reach a larger audience. What do you think? I don't live with all the religious fanatics you have to put up with every day. I am sorry that they annoy you so much.

Thorwald 1

Tue 24 Jul, 2007 03:51 pm
winter wrote:
Don't you for one moment assume that the "Holy Bible" is mine. You said "your bible."

winter wrote:
b. "Noah took _all_ non-aquatic life aboard his boat"

"b" is also, AFAIK, not really what it says in the story.

"b" is exactly what it said in the story; look it up.

1. xFamily
2. » General
3. » the flood and the animals