Assuming THE FLOOD Did Happen . . .

[Audie]

How did Noah fit 8 million species on a boat?

He magiced them to make them small.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

He magiced them to make them small.

Miracles a.k.a. PFM (Pure F*****g Magic)

 

[Tony Arthur]

Please, please, please tell me that you don't really believe that, and were posting it as a joke?

 

[Audie]

Please, please, please tell me that you don't really believe that, and were posting it as a joke?

Sounds reasonable, what is wrong with it?

 

[David1967]

Oh, ok. I didn’t know that. Thanks, David.

My son bought me a copy of The book of Enoch. How true it is to the one mentioned in the bible, IDK. It is an interesting read though, and goes into more detail of the pre flood world. I enjoyed reading it.

 

[Audie]

My son bought me a copy of The book of Enoch. How true it is to the one mentioned in the bible, IDK. It is an interesting read though, and goes into more detail of the pre flood world. I enjoyed reading it.

Just curious-are you completely uninterested in the fact
that here was no flood?

 

[David1967]

Just curious-are you completely uninterested in the fact
that here was no flood?

Completely

 

[Audie]

Completely

So, like, believing that "god" committed some horrific
crime that never in fact occurred, is cool with you.

If there is a god, I wonder how he'd feel about that.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How true it is to the one mentioned in the bible, IDK.

Yes, that’s the thing. It’s wise to be skeptical of those apocryphal books. God’s spirit wasn’t protecting the integrity of those books through the years.

Although I’d like to read that Book of Enoch.

FYI, I’ve always appreciated the reverence toward the Bible you display in your posts!

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How did Noah fit 8 million species on a boat?

8,000,000 species on the ark? Where do you get that?

“From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, as in Genesis 1:11-12) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminologica research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark.

According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight.

It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth (Genesis 7:1–3). Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.

Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.”

From How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

8,000,000 species on the ark? Where do you get that?

“From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, as in Genesis 1:11-12) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminologica research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark.

According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight.

It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth (Genesis 7:1–3). Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.

Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.”

From How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them?

The problem with so called "baraminology" is that it is not scientific in the least. You are relying on liars, loons, and losers. If they want to claim that their ideas are "scientific" then they need to state a clear and reasonable test that could show them to be wrong if they are in error. The theory of evolution has several but a clear one would be a violation of phylogeny. You are also proposing super evolution and by the standards of "baraminology" man and other apes should be in the same "baramin". Are you sure that you want to do that? Special pleading is usually the death of a scientific idea.

 

[Audie]

The problem with so called "baraminology" is that it is not scientific in the least. You are relying on liars, loons, and losers. If they want to claim that their ideas are "scientific" then they need to state a clear and reasonable test that could show them to be wrong if they are in error. The theory of evolution has several but a clear one would be a violation of phylogeny. You are also proposing super evolution and by the standards of "baraminology" man and other apes should be in the same "baramin". Are you sure that you want to do that? Special pleading is usually the death of a scientific idea.

hate to say it but the cowboy sounds more reasoned
and reasonable than you do

 

[Subduction Zone]

hate to say it but the cowboy sounds more reasoned
and reasonable than you do

You have to be kidding. Those pushing the idea of baraminology have no peer review behind their claims. They simply make an ad hoc explanation based upon the assumption that the Bible is true and then worse yet propose super evolution after the a "Flood" that happened about 4,000 years ago. How much evolution can occur in 4,000 years? Actually much less since it appears that all species appeared in only a few generations after the Flood and then stopped appearing. His one link is to a site that requires its workers not to use the scientific method.

Perhaps it is time to discuss why we know that there wasn't a flood of Noah, again.

 

[Audie]

You have to be kidding. Those pushing the idea of baraminology have no peer review behind their claims. They simply make an ad hoc explanation based upon the assumption that the Bible is true and then worse yet propose super evolution after the a "Flood" that happened about 4,000 years ago. How much evolution can occur in 4,000 years? Actually much less since it appears that all species appeared in only a few generations after the Flood and then stopped appearing. His one link is to a site that requires its workers not to use the scientific method.

Perhaps it is time to discuss why we know that there wasn't a flood of Noah, again.

I am talking style of presentation rather than content.

The most outlandish bs can be made to sound reasonable, and good stuff can be made to sound hysterical.

 

[Skwim]

8,000,000 species on the ark? Where do you get that?

“From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, as in Genesis 1:11-12) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminologica research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the family level in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark.

A bit about your esteemed baraminology.

History of baraminology
Baramins were first proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but lacked sufficient social backing to gain currency. In 1990, when creation "scientists" were becoming more eager — and desperate — to explain how their concepts could possibly be feasible, Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine reintroduced baraminology and tried to work out the criteria for membership in a baramin. Research has since continued apace as a key component of young Earth creationism and its pseudo-journals.


Etymology
Marsh coined the word "baramin" by taking two words out of a Hebrew glossary and tacking them together with no regard for how the Hebrew language works, much as in the long scientific tradition of mangling Greek with Latin.

Min is typically given the meaning "kind" in elementary glossaries. In Modern Hebrew it means both "species" and "sex". The citation form for the Hebrew verb is the "third person singular masculine perfect active", so (for those who don't speak linguist) bara means "he created" (the semitic root B-R-A in this context is reserved in Hebrew for the act of creating. "He conjured" may be a better translation). It is used in the opening words of the Hebrew Bible: B're****h bara elohim ... means "In beginning God created…". If one replaces elohim, the subject of that verb, with another noun (min), and tries to make some sort of sense out of it, it would be saying that a "kind", rather than "God" did the creating. (The subject in Ancient Hebrew typically follows the verb.) Those who use the word "baramin" of course would be averse to ascribing the act of creation to something other than God.


Which baramin is it in?
Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.

Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization, leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates that the possibility of hybrids definitely means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean different baramins.

The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:

"The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans. "​

Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."

Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.Where various hominids go is another story.


How baraminology produces observed diversity
“ The Creator, if He exists, has "an inordinate fondness for beetles." --- J. B. S. Haldane

Creationists hold that baraminology explains the diversity of life observed today despite the extinction level event of the alleged global flood. This requires new species to diverge — by whatever means — from the original "kinds" taken on board Noah's ark. Todd Charles Wood estimates, from the fossil record and Biblical text, that 15 million species arose in only three to four centuries after the flood, and many of those are now extinct.

[Absurd? Of course it is]

Source and much more

.​

When you buy into baraminology you buy into a whole mess of goofy.

I recall Ken Ham, founder of AiG, saying that a kind can be equivalent to an organism taxonomically classified anywhere from the rank of species to the rank of family---kind of depends on which best suits the needs of the creationist.

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I suppose if a worldwide flood did occur it would render our atmosphere uninhabitable.

 

[David1967]

Yes, that’s the thing. It’s wise to be skeptical of those apocryphal books. God’s spirit wasn’t protecting the integrity of those books through the years.

Although I’d like to read that Book of Enoch.

FYI, I’ve always appreciated the reverence toward the Bible you display in your posts!

Take care, my cousin.

Thanks for the kind words. I do my best to be respectful to others beliefs regardless the differences. You and @Deeje bring up some intriguing points of view that gives me some new perspectives to consider at times. As far as the Apocryphal books go, I am curious as to the criteria was used to determine which ones have relevance to us today.
Have a great day.

 

[David1967]

So, like, believing that "god" committed some horrific
crime that never in fact occurred, is cool with you.

If there is a god, I wonder how he'd feel about that.

I wasn't thinking of it that way. But, someone believing in an event like the flood doesn't bother me. Why would it? It doesn't effect me.

 

[Audie]

I wasn't thinking of it that way. But, someone believing in an event like the flood doesn't bother me. Why would it? It doesn't effect me.

Bother me? It is a study in cultural anthropology.

Included is how one manages to be indifferent to the
clear and powerful demonstration that there was no
flood, a psycho atrocity by a god they nominally worship
and respect.

 

[Seven headed beast]

What the flood accomplished was that it was the cataclysmic event that ended the third Age or "Yuga".

It was not about who was playing "west Hollywood leapfrog" in Sodom.

It was a calendar that necessitated the flood.

You need to understand that the Ages are all of finite length. They are based on the "procession of the equinox".

So, to answer your question, it had to happen. When these Ages end, there is no overtime. They just end.

So, what you need to understand in the end is that we are swiftly approaching the end of the fourth Age, and what the Christ would tell you if he was around here, is that it's time to get your karma polished up, because the end of time is upon us. So, if you don't "graduate" out of here this time, you don't get out at all.

Actually, what the earth is, is a place that we are set to show the cosmos that we can get along and play well with others. You keep coming back through until you get it right. Once you show the cosmos that you get it, then you ascend the next time you move through the bright light.

While I don't know what you believe, and really don't care, but I can tell you that there is no "forgiveness" involved in getting to heaven. The word "forgiveness" does not appear in the book of Revelation one single time. What is does say, is that we are "judged by our work" (Rev 20:12) and that is karma, plain and simple.

Think about it. If you're going to go someplace where you're going to exist for eternity, you really don't want a bunch of idiots running around.

This is why the Christian notion of "forgiveness" isn't really valid. Because if you're going to go someplace where everyone has shown that they get it, and can cooperate, if you let one yeahoo in there because he's "forgiven" then the whole place is shot to hell.

The Christian Church created the Bible from ancient Sumerian and Babylonian texts. They added quite a bit of their own ideas, including the notion of forgiveness. They actually created a manual for their own self enrichment.

Anyway, im off on a tangent here and have gone too far.

What you need to understand in the big picture is that it's time to get your karma cleaned up. The Age is coming to a close and there will be a cataclysmic event that ends this Age as well.