Noah and his Ark - Believe it or Not?

[robtex]

Could some of you who feel the boat ever existed answer the questions in post # 3 and explain after reading post # 21 how that many animals could fit in such a small boat?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

It may not if you are in the space ship going round and round the earth.

LOL, quite true. But I assure you I am quite Earth bound, shivering here in North Texas, which is quite unusual here, perhaps we have angered the gods.

B.

 

[FFH]

Could some of you who feel the boat ever existed answer the questions in post # 3 and explain after reading post # 21 how that many animals could fit in such a small boat?

Let me compare the TItanic to the Ark.

Titanic
Three levels
882 feet long
92 feet wide
104 feet tall
46,328 ton capacity
2,340 passenger and crew

Arc
Three levels
450 feet long
75 feet wide
45 feet tall
23,000 ton capacity or more (approx half of Titanic)
Arc was made of wood which is more boyant than iron and steel

Most of the animals we know today have evolved within their respective species. There are so many variations within species now. Maybe there weren't as many variations, within species, at the time of the flood.

 

[ChrisP]

There were three levels.

Let me compare the TItanic to the Ark.

Titanic Arc
882 feet long 450 feet long
92 feet wide 75 feet wide
104 feet tall 45 feet tall
46,328 ton capacity
2,340 passenger and crew

Arc
450 feet long
75 feet high
45 feet wide
23,000 ton capacity or more (approx half of Titanic)
Arc was made of wood which was probably more boyant
than iron and steel.

There are really only a few basic animal species. Most of the animals we know today have evolved within their respective species. Here is a good case for evolution, not from species to species, but within species. There are so many variation within species now. Maybe there were not as many variations within species at the time of the flood. Just a theory.

Evolution AFTER the flood. Worth thinking about.

Also worth a little consideration is the migration of animals from Ararat to their locations globally. Especially seeing as some kinds of Animals are quite localised. NZ is a prime example of this, as the only native mammal we have is a bat, but we have more species that are indigenous and NZ specific (I'm sure there's a better word for that. Someone enlighten me) than any other country I'm aware of.

 

[Think Bright]

...
There are really only a few basic animal species. Most of the animals we know today have evolved within their respective species. Here is a good case for evolution, not from species to species, but within species. There are so many variation within species now. Maybe there were not as many variations within species at the time of the flood. Just a theory.

Wow, you don't seem to know much about evolution. It ain't variations that make species. Different dogs ain't different species. A species is defined as the kids of a pair having kids. Donkeys don't have kids. Ya gotta have male and female of a species to continue the species.

I guess what you're talking about is "kinds" and that just doesn't produce today's species and there are no "kinds" today. I bet you can't name a kind with it's Latin name.

Ya got me when you compared the ark to the Titanic. It doesn't make a difference.

 

[FFH]

I meant evolution within each species.

Maybe there were only a couple of variations of dogs that entered the ark. Now there are hundreds and maybe thousands of variations of dogs.

Evolution or changes can happen in dogs, for example, in order to adapt to their surroundings. This was the basis for the Darwin theory. I think that his theory just got out of hand. People ran with it and it evolved into something more than he intended. We are not evolved from any other species. Our origins are from Adam not amibas or apes.

 

[Think Bright]

I meant evolution within each "kind" of species.

I guess what you're saying is that "kinds" were on the ark. That evolution took over after the ark found land making variations of "kind" which are called species.

There ain't an explanation of what a kind is yet. How about one?

 

[FFH]

In the ark there may have been only two kinds of dogs. Now there are hundreds. This is all that I am saying. There weren't as many kinds of dogs as there are today. Many dogs have evolved from maybe only two different kinds.

 

[ChrisP]

Wow, you don't seem to know much about evolution. It ain't variations that make species. Different dogs ain't different species. A species is defined as the kids of a pair having kids. Donkeys don't have kids. Ya gotta have male and female of a species to continue the species.

I guess what you're talking about is "kinds" and that just doesn't produce today's species and there are no "kinds" today. I bet you can't name a kind with it's Latin name.

Ya got me when you compared the ark to the Titanic. It doesn't make a difference.

Thinkbright... Donkey's do have kids. The animal you are thinking of is a Mule which is a Horse mating with a Donkey.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=taxonomy This should clear up the confusion regarding species and genus.

FFH is referring to species. Thinkbright is referring to Genus.

FFH is saying that within the canine Genus, there were only a few (maybe 2) taken on the Ark. Now these species have interbreeded and evolved creating the many species with the Canine Genus that we see today.

 

[Think Bright]

Thinkbright... Donkey's do have kids. The animal you are thinking of is a Mule which is a Horse mating with a Donkey.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=taxonomy This should clear up the confusion regarding species and genus.

FFH is referring to species. Thinkbright is referring to Genus.

FFH is saying that within the canine Genus, there were only a few (maybe 2) taken on the Ark. Now these species have interbreeded and evolved creating the many species with the Canine Genus that we see today.

You're right about mule. I always seem to get that a$$-backwards

I know it's taxonomy but that don't give specifics about what species are in a "kind". Is a "kind" the Family or the Genus?

If you want Candae for the Family dog is in that don't explain how fox and wolf are on the ark as the sole example of dog. I can't see a fox mating with a wolf to get anything.

There's 26 Orders of mammalian. That don't count all the other animals. Chiroptera, an Order for bats, has 15 Families. That don't count the Genus under them. If you assume Genus, instead of species, is "kind" you've got a huge number problem for creatures on the ark. I think you've got a big problem with just the number of Families.

You also have to think about the time it would take to produce species from whatever you want to use as "kind". It's what, 4-5000 years, since there was Noah. He didn't "beget" any more species did he? That should have been sumptin' to notice in that bible genealogy!

And you expect all the other animals to to evolve into the number of species we have today? Maybe Noah and his wife just weren't up to having good enough genes. Guess there's a price to pay for being "rightous" :jam:

In doing FFH's thinking for him, you don't do any favors for him. There are more than a million species that had to go on the ark.

 

[painted wolf]

what exactly is a "kind" ?
I have never gotten a good definition from anyone about this, and I'm still terribly currious about it.

wa:do

 

[Think Bright]

Kind would be a species within a genus.

Dog is the genus, doberman is the species. According to snalepace.

You're getting further and further from anything convincing for the ark.

Ya screwed up the definitions or snaleSpace did. The genus is Canis. The species is common dog. The variation is Doberman. A little bit more for ya, the Family is Canidae. The Order is Carnivores.

But you ain't using "kind" the way most believers of the ark use it. They say "kind" to reduce the number of creatures and plants on the ark. You have just said that over a million animals (1.4 to 1.75 million species) were on the ark. And what about the plants? Bacteria? - how was that carried? There miust have been some sick animals on board.

Are you reading and understanding my posts?

I don't think you could get them all on 3 Titanics.

 

[painted wolf]

ahh so Horse is a differnt "kind" than Zebra or Donkey?
Wolf is a different "kind" than Fox and Coyote....

wa:do

 

[FFH]

I have revised my last three posts so that they read better. There should be no confusion as to what I was trying to say.

 

[painted wolf]

but now I am once again confused as to what a "kind" is...

wa:do

 

[FFH]

but now I am once again confused as to what a "kind" is...

wa:do

Kind is not found in the taxonomy chart. In simple everyday terms you would say a coyote is a certain kind of wolf. I looked at the taxonomy chart and it seems a little unclear as to where to classify a wolf and a coyote on the chart. I would put a wolf as the genus and the coyote as the species. The word kind could be used at all levels of the chart to describe each lower classification of an animal. For example an elephant is a certain kind of mammal. I think that the taxonomy chart is an attempt by evolutionists to link all animals on this earth together, when in fact, many of them were individually created by a divine God and have individual origins. The taxonomy chart does not work in all cases. It is a cheap attempt to link all animals together.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Couple of questlons on the Noah story.

1) where is the boat?
2) How could all the animals fit on one boat?
3) How could all the animals be moved distances to get on the boat?
4) Why could a God that created life with the touch of his hand need to flood the world instead of just uncreating what he didnt' want?
5) If it rained /stormed for 40 days wouldn't there have to been a long draught first to get all that water from the oceans into the sky? I don't remember reading about a great draught in the Torah.

The similarities with other stories in the area (Ugarit, Babylon, and Cananite) completely make these questions irrelevant. Honestly, we don't know for sure which story came first, but the Hebrews certainly show that they are a people of their culture by telling exactly the same story. The flood story isn't the only myth that is borrowed in Genesis. The creation story shows similarities with creation myths by addressing the same Cananite gods, the geneologies match Babylon king myths, and various other stories have their compliments in eastern mythology. Reading Genesis literally is absolute madness.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think the Flood Story is a myth, but I'm not sure what the point of the myth is. Does anyone have an interpretation of it? What's the moral, if any, that we're supposed to draw from it?

There is the idea that when the sons of god mated with the daughters of women (Gen 6:2) that Satin was trying to corrupt the line that the Messiah was to come from. God saved Noah and destroyed all the others because Noah was perfect (untainted) in his generations thus preserving the messianic line.

 

[painted wolf]

so in other words FFH "kind" as used in the bible is useless?
if it is purely subjective based on the whims of the one useing the word then we have no way of knowing how many "kinds" there were on the Ark.
he could have only had four "kinds" on the Ark, mammal 'kind', bird 'kind', reptile 'kind' and amphibian 'kind'.
Just 8 creatures.

but I can apparently make a 'kind' to be whatever suits me.. so all doggy-ish things are "of one kind" and all catish-ly things are "of another kind"
of cource this gets tricky when you add prehistoric animals into the mix, at one point cats were quite doggy and dogs were quite catty. Fox is still very cat-like and maybe this means he needs his own 'kind' between the dogs and the cats.

It is a very confusing sort of classification.

wa:do

 

[Tiberius]

I can't see how Noah's story as told in the Bible could possibly be true. There are so many impossibilities that the only way for it to be real is if God performed a great number of miracles.

However, If God was happy to perform miracles to do it all, why not just do one miracle to allow Noah and his family and the animals to survive the flood without need for an ark.

or better yet, God could have just snapped his fingers and removed with a thought all the things on Earth that he didn't like.