Noah's ark?

Here's an interesting story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/26/noah.ark.ap/index.html

To me it seems that the Noah account is technically impossible- genetic diversity in humans and animals, and technology considerations with making the boat- and that at best, it's a highly twisted story about 'something else'. I wonder, if they do find a boat will they proclaim that it automatically makes the story of Noah true, and whether this will rub up Creationists even more?

Leperous said:
To me it seems that the Noah account is technically impossible- genetic diversity ...

never stopped the "Adam and Eve" believers

There was a TV program on about Noah's Ark not too long ago, and they were talking about it from a scientific point of view rather than religious. I didn't actually watch it but caught the end, at which they came to the conclusion that, obviously, it was impossible.

I caught a bit of it too, quite interesting but naff CGI :razz: I think a christian/whoever would say God helped Noah so it doesn't matter if it's technically impossible, but then of course you ask why he'd do that when there are other, non-nature-breaking ways to mercilessly kill sinners (which doesn't seem to happen these days... hmm, wonder what those drowned people would have to say about free will!). Though I guess according to Judges 1:19, where he has trouble killing people with iron chariots, he's not actually that omnipotent and couldn't just strike them down :razz:

A christian would say the story was a metaphor for what happened, that the story was told in that way because it's the only way the people of the time would have understood. That way you can still believe the story, in a way, whilst maintaining imunity from arguements.

Leperous said:
Here's an interesting story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/26/noah.ark.ap/index.html

To me it seems that the Noah account is technically impossible- genetic diversity in humans and animals, and technology considerations with making the boat- and that at best, it's a highly twisted story about 'something else'. I wonder, if they do find a boat will they proclaim that it automatically makes the story of Noah true, and whether this will rub up Creationists even more?

I think anybody who doesn't see it was based off the Epic of Gilgamesh is already a little too deep-set into their beliefs to be convinced otherwise.

scary_jeff said:
A christian would say the story was a metaphor for what happened, that the story was told in that way because it's the only way the people of the time would have understood. That way you can still believe the story, in a way, whilst maintaining imunity from arguements.

But, a) what clues are there in the story to suggest that it's an interpretation- it gives actual precise values for the dimension of the ship, it seems to be presenting itself as a real event!- and b) how do they choose which OT stories to take as literal truth and which to not? Why is the OT such a mixture of truth and metaphor/fable?

They choose which ones are truth and which are not by seeing what stories science can prove to be wrong, and saying those ones are the 'not literal' ones :smile:

I watched the noah's program, it wasnt too bad. I also watched a thing on erm exodus? I dunno it was one of the last bible things & they basically proved all it was - like most of the bible was that its just an attack on the romans. lol

Eh, people risk personal harm to themselves and their compatriots by climbing mountains for far lesser reasons.

The theory I heard on the explanation of Noah's Flood was that it wasn't worldwide, just localish. An area the size of Britain could get flooded, make the people inside of it think it's worldwide, since they don't know any better, and provided it's attached to a lot of other land, no real need to go about rescuing animals to protect species. Still unlikely, but manageable.

Regarding the Gilgamesh theory, I think it's fair to say a majority of people aren't familiar with the story. Disney hasn't made the Gilgamesh movie, and frankly, would any of us know the tale of Snow White or Cinderella if it wasn't for them?

One day, I hope to build my own ark, and none of you are invited!

Just suppose....that they find the ark.

And suppose...that inside, perfectly preserved, is an olive branch. The olive branch would be sitting on a wooden pedastel, and a ray of sunlight is beaming on the branch.

And suppose, that when (the person who discovers it) sees it, a voice can be heard saying, "Remove thy shoes, for where thou stand is Holy Ground."

And the multitudes would flock to the Mountain....there would be great changes in the world...Religion would be back again, and the doubt of a true-one God would end.

Just suppose...

There is in fact good geological evidence for a large flood event in aproximatly the right time frame in the middle east. The formation of the dead sea (I think) was a fairly sudden geologic event. Honstly, nobody with a functioning intelect believes that there was an actual world wide flood, but that doesn't mean the story isn't about a real event. think how twisted internet rumors get in just a year or two. then consider how long ago this was suposed to have happend, and if it did happen, how long it must have been before anyone put it into writing. the story is bound to have been twisted to the ideals of those who finaly but it into writing. as such, even if it is based on an actual event, it is as you have said more a metaphore than anything else.

pfft. Anyways, many of the events in the old testament of the bible are based on historical events that were obviously distorted by the people not knowing any better. For example, there is evidence that the Noah's Ark story is an explanation of the expansion of the Black Sea. The Black Sea was initially a lake that was below sea level which was flooded when a natural dam at the Straights of Dardenelles broke, releasing the Mediterranian into the Black Sea.

I read it in a National Geographic somewhere, so it must be true!

DocRock said:
Just suppose....that they find the ark.

And suppose...that inside, perfectly preserved, is an olive branch. The olive branch would be sitting on a wooden pedastel, and a ray of sunlight is beaming on the branch.

And suppose, that when (the person who discovers it) sees it, a voice can be heard saying, "Remove thy shoes, for where thou stand is Holy Ground."

And the multitudes would flock to the Mountain....there would be great changes in the world...Religion would be back again, and the doubt of a true-one God would end.

Just suppose...

I wouldn't enjoy a world where everybody agrees with each other.

Hmm. I think yak is right it was the black sea...

I think most people would be more likely to dismiss the person who claimed to have heard the voice as crazy than to suddenely start believing in god...

TBH science could be a much more productive force for good if it didnt insist on entrenching itself in a war on shattering peoples faith...

It's just getting it's own back, religion had it's turn on the throne. :smile:

Aye, but I think you cross the line when you set out to find scientific evidence or theory to prove religion wrong... not that im saying this Ark thing is one of those, but it's still impeaching on peoples beliefs..

likewise religion shouldnt be forced upon people etc..

Religion is forced on people though, and only recently has it begun to lose lots of its sway.

I think common sense should be forced upon people in huge doses. :biggrin:

Gwil said:
TBH science could be a much more productive force for good if it didnt insist on entrenching itself in a war on shattering peoples faith...

Er, who's going up that mountain to have a look? Who's commissioning research into the Turin Shroud, Jesus Box (which turned out to be a fake ), etc.? Science doesn't give a s**t about religion, it's meant to be an objective, unbiased view on the world, but when you start trying to bend it to fit your religious beliefs is when you get it involved...

What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

"A band said it in one of their songs! It must be right!"

Nothing is objective, Lep - people investigate events talked about in the bible for two reasons: to strengthen or put down faith.

Yak_Fighter said:
What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

more like we're armenian weirdos who make mostly s**t music :razz:

Yak_Fighter said:
What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

Spoken as someone who truely does not understand science. :sad:

Cassius said:
Nothing is objective, Lep - people investigate events talked about in the bible for two reasons: to strengthen or put down faith.

What about simple curiosity? there are people in the world who simply want to know, and find it to be an interesting intelectual puzzle

Gwil said:
TBH science could be a much more productive force for good if it didnt insist on entrenching itself in a war on shattering peoples faith...

</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=5>Absolutly. Research into the validity of religion, beyond causing a popular backlash against science, is simply a waste of resources which might be better spent on devloping practical fusion power or somthing similarly significant and interesting.</TD>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>

Tracer Bullet said:

Yak_Fighter said:
What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

Spoken as someone who truely does not understand science. :sad:

I do believe that what I said was in jest. I would think that quoting from a SOAD song would make that clear. If you're directing that to SOAD, then, well, they have a bunch of strange ideas. "They're trying to build a prison...for you and me!"

Yak_Fighter said:

Tracer Bullet said:

Yak_Fighter said:
What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

Spoken as someone who truely does not understand science. :sad:

I do believe that what I said was in jest. I would think that quoting from a SOAD song would make that clear. If you're directing that to SOAD, then, well, they have a bunch of strange ideas. "They're trying to build a prison...for you and me!"

Most musicians don't always belive what they write in thier songs lyrics. Just look back at black sabath, or better yet how about all those sappy love songs on the radio, what a load of crap. Its almost always about $$$, hard to belive but thats the bottom line. Who knows if S.O.A.D. even writes their own music, you'd be shocked if you knew how many bands have writers for most of their music. Anyway I'm sliding off topic pretty hard. Anyway I'm sure you already know this yak.

It's the pop acts that get the ghost writing done... quite frankly I can't see anyone but System of a Down writing songs for System of a Down.

Yea, could be, you never know though.

I think people are actually confused about what proper 'science' is.

Science is the persuit of accurate knowledge to understand our surroundings.

Science advances by disproof as it is rather easy to prove something to be true. Not to mention if you want to belive something enough you wont see it any way besides what you believe.

However, Science is not unlike religion, in both you start with an idea, then you take a leap of faith (religieon) or a Hypothesis (science) and build on top of that.

There are also other things that have been widely adopted that just haven't been proven. Relgion is one, but it's fine if you believe it or not, it's your choice.

Macro Evolution (or is it micro) is another, its NOT the survival of the fittest one. I think it's macro, anyway, Macro evolution hasn't really been proven or disproven, but people believe it. Same thing with the Big Bang. We don't and will probably never know how these things actually work/happened.

The reason why they're doubting macro evolution is because of our time mapping techniques. Scientics estimated something like 30 million years inbetween the destruction of the dinosaurs and creation of humans ... yet ... we can find incredible amounts of Dinosaur fossils, but not many, if any human fossils. You would think you'd run into the most recent species first. There's been so many fakes of the missing link its rediculous.

Also, after St. Helens blew, they took rock samples and clocked them back to something like 20 million years old ... and that's blaintanly false, since they saw it happen 2 months (or so) before hand.

I guess the point is, you can't prove or disprove either belief system, especially not with the other.

Check out "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer, specifically chapter 3 called "How Thinking Goes Wrong"

Sorry, I don't have any links for it :sad:

I think when they say "They're trying to build a prison...for you and me!", they are talking about how there are always more and more regulations, restrictions, and monitoring in our society. They were talking a while ago about introducing a system in new houses where it would be impossible to run a bath that was 'too hot', to stop anyone getting scalded - there seem to be more and more rediculous regulations with the aim being to prevent anything bad ever happening to anyone, but the result being that people can't do anything without bumping into some stupid rule :sad:

To all people who take the bible literally - if there were only two gazelles, and two lions on the ark, and they were adrift for forty days, what do you think the carnivourous lions would do? Even if the gazelles started breeding immediately after getting on board the ark, there would be no hope of species continuation. The gestation period for the gazelle is 5.5 to 6 months. You can't just jumpstart an ecosystem with such a small amount of animals, to paraphrase a slashdotter.

Now, what does this have to do with the real world? Well, I can see three ways of looking at the bible.

1. All of the miraculous activity in the bible - the smiting of Sodom and Gemorrah, the resurrection of Jesus, creation of the universe - is misinterpretation of natural events or just made up
2. The bible is true, word for word
3. Bits of the bible are true, word for word, but the rest is just exaggeration or myth

Many people jump at 3, but it begs the question - which bits?

noahs ark was a re-write of an egyptian story of a rich trader who survived a large flood, living off his stock he planned to sell.

I vote the first option. I mean, we didnt come from Adam and Eve... Unless they were really horny and did it every day for their entire lives.. We cant really go from 2 people to 7 billion in 2000+ years.

Personally I dont believe any of it.

Leperous said:
To me it seems that the Noah account is technically impossible- genetic diversity in humans and animals...

What is so technichally impossible about genetic diversity from a base of 8 people(the number of humans said to be on the Ark)? As far as science has shown, there is enough genetic information within 2 individuals to produce hundreds of billions of variations. Multiply just 100 billion to the fourth power, and that brings you to a number higher than my calculator can handle...

Are you saying that it would be possible for all human genetic diversity could have sprung from a single source over 2,000 years if they mated often enough? The second generation would all have to mate with each other, and we'd all be very very close to genetically identical. There's no way you could get the kind of genetic diversity we have now in such a short amount of time.

So assuming Noah was arabic/middle eastern, we could get aboriginees, north american indians, africans, chinese, indian, polynesian, etc. etc. people in a few hundred generations? And get them to these places around the world and populate them, too?

And I wasn't just referring to humans. I don't see how you can account for the billions of animal/plant/etc. species on this earth, given an extinction event, no macroevolution, and a couple of hundred animals on a boat. Fill up an oil tanker with all the different animals you can, and enough so they don't interbreed themselves to death, and tell me that they'll 'microevolve' in a couple of thousand years to something just as diverse as we see today.

Indeed it is true that there would have been close family mating as that would be the only possibility in such a scenario. However, the possilble combinations in the species would multiply exponentially with each generation.

Yes, but you'd need a lot of time.

Ten to twelve thousand years ago, the cheetah suffered a massive dieoff. Prior to this, there had been many different species, but only a small number of the modern species survived. It is from this remnant population that all cheetahs alive today have descended. As a species, they are genetically identical, with only 2% genetic variation compared with 10% or more in other cats. A skin graft from any cheetah will grow normally on any other cheetah in the world, while a graft from any other cat will wither and die. The potential for a virus to wipe out large numbers is high because of the lack of variation in disease resistance.

Source

Civilisation hasn't been around for 10 to 12 thousand years! Mutations do occur and are responsible for a ton of evolution, but you need a huge amount of time.

It's all verywell talking about the theoretical number of combinations, but the reality is that if you breed two closely related animals over and over, the results are not quite so good.

It's quite amusing that these theories are tested, yet people overlook most of Western societies morals (the Christianised side, at least) are developed from the Bible...

It is not the science or the truth that is important in these stories anymore, it is the moral message.. and always was.

Wild Card said:
I vote the first option. I mean, we didnt come from Adam and Eve... Unless they were really horny and did it every day for their entire lives.. We cant really go from 2 people to 7 billion in 2000+ years.

Personally I dont believe any of it.

if someone is going to believe or not believe, they should at least get the right story to base it on. when cain killed abel, he was punished by being sent away. he went to live in the land of Nod, where he took a wife.

now as there were wives to be taken in the land of Nod, it should somehow dispell any belief that the bible claims all humans are descended from adam and eve. it clearly doesn't.

and it's more like 6000+ years ago. :razz:

Western morals are based on the bible?! Please point me out some which don't exist in pretty much all other civilisations on this planet. It's morally ok to own and beat your slaves according to the bible, and kill us atheists and believers of false gods (oh wait, isn't that the same thing some people 'complain' about Islam but conveniently ignore in Exodus?!), but I don't see many people following those up.

Yeah, I don't know many Christians today advocating the stoning of adulterers or the executions of others because of their beliefs. Now, our friends the Muslims... well...

Well, just shows they don't read their bible.

Exodus 22:20:

Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed

Deuteronomy 13:6:

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people

Deuteronomy 13:12:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock

Leviticus 20:10:

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death

err... "those are just metaphors... don't take it literaly"

did you hear the one about the engineer who...thwacks ensue

Gah. People that pull out bizarre passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy to tell Christians what they're supposed to be doing morality-wise deserve to be put to the sword in the name of the Lord.