About 40,000 animals (20,000 syngameons), which could have fit in only half the volume of the Ark, pretty cool.
How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
Interesting thought. I have also wondered what the hell is down there, and if we did create vehicle which could get to the bottom it would be interesting to see what types of creatures and fossils are down there.
Sure, and how did Noah feed them, or more to the point how did he stop them from eating each other?
How many Dinosaurs were on the Ark, exactly?
Why in the name of Christ's sandals didn't the lord almightly build his own fucking ark, or give all the animals hover boots?!?!?!?
I'm not surprised, since God's camcorder was found next to a 6000 year old Dinsosaur fossil. Check out the footage....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3W36jl1Lj8
*************
M*W: You bring up some very valid points. If the story of Noah were true, then why didn't the author specify how they fed the animals, caged them as they would have had to cage them. The birds could easily fly off the ark, you know.
Well, the dinosaurs preceded the story of Gilgamesh, so they definitely preceded Noah's sequel.
Another good point. If god knew he was about to send a deluge on Noah and the world, why didn't he provide the safe haven? Wasn't that what a god was supposed to do for the righteous?
How did Noah keep those pairs from humping and breeding in the ark? Who cleaned up the elephant shit? Some clown?
How did they know how much and what kind of food to take in the ark? That's a lot of hay, if you ask me. What about oats for the horses? Did they grow oats in that area?
Apparently, there were no steerage devices on the ark such as sails or rudders or oars. That's a tell-tale sign if you ask me. Since there were no other arks before the one Noah built, how the hell did he know how to build one? I know, I know, the biblical instructions. But the biblical instructions were written down by some scribe somewhere long after the myth of Noah occurred. In fact, the original myth of Gilgamesh, also written down by some scribe somewhere, did Gilgamesh have the instructions on how to build his boat? What about Jason and the Ark-go-nauts? Where were the instructions for the Ark-go?
I've always read that the myth of Noah actually preceded the myths of the GoE & A&E. That makes more sense, mythologically speaking, anyway.
I see the myth of Noah and the Ark like a creation story. Life existed before Noah, but god told Noah and his family to gather the animals into the ark where water surrounded them, and they were delivered unharmed on the top of dry Mount Ararat as if they were a metaphoric symbol for a pregnancy that was conceived and safely delivered from the womb. But, then, that's just me.
Last edited by a moderator:
The word ark has different meanings, it seems to mean a boat or ship in the noah story but could mean to protect or to hold or contain, there is the ark of the covenent which is said to have held the ten commandments(some think it may have been a huge battery that would shock anyone who touched it), a small container compared to the noah ark. Also the world would most likely not have been the earth as we commonly think but the world that noah lived in. There seems to be a lot of truth in the Noah story, there are different accounts that are almost identicle to the bible story all around the area. The thing is with noah he knew the flood was coming and prepared for it,he would have been very perceptive and have had a lot of knowledge, how are we to know what technology or knowledge they had then if most life was destroyed so would our knowledge of them.
Hi Kendell,
This great technology from Noah's age would have been fossilized in IAC's favorite type of substance: Sediment.
Also let's not forget this dandy of a verse:
Gen 6:4
4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
NKJV
Apparently there were "giants" on the earth back then, yet not a scrap of fossil evidence to prove it.
Also, this verse describes angels bonking women who then gave birth to demi-god super humans. LOL. Christians don't like to think about odd verses like this.
IAC, any other fairy tales for me? I love them.
This great technology from Noah's age would have been fossilized in IAC's favorite type of substance: Sediment.
Also let's not forget this dandy of a verse:
Gen 6:4
4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
NKJV
Apparently there were "giants" on the earth back then, yet not a scrap of fossil evidence to prove it.
Also, this verse describes angels bonking women who then gave birth to demi-god super humans. LOL. Christians don't like to think about odd verses like this.
IAC, any other fairy tales for me? I love them.
I was once told, as a child, about these mythical creatures that were manlike yet were frail and needy and so dim and stupid that they were often mistaken for vegetables.
I didn't beleive it at the time, even though I read it in a book passed down to me generation to generation, but having met IceAgeCivilizations and lightgigantic I'm starting to beleive that old leather book.
I didn't beleive it at the time, even though I read it in a book passed down to me generation to generation, but having met IceAgeCivilizations and lightgigantic I'm starting to beleive that old leather book.
This is what Icey had to say on his website: http://www.genesisveracity.com/Articles/Article2.htm
"About 95% of fossilized creatures are marine animals: clams, snails, corals, fish, etc. These water creatures are found throughout the sedimentary rocks on the continents. Mostly water creatures in the rocks on the continents? How can this be? The water must have been up on the continents, no way around it."
Then, when we tore him a new one on this site he had to up the anty:
"As I said in the rest of the post which you partially cited, they escaped uphill for awhile, then floated and bloated and decomposed, no fossils, this is what happened to most of the animals, and is why 99% of fossils are marine creatures."
Hmmmmm. 95% went magically to 99% when his theory was being challenged. All this proves is how IAC resorts to making up facts when his theory is put under a microscope.
This, in fact, is one of the weakest points of his theory. He states that the dinosaurs and millions of humans are found in only 5% of sedimentary rock because they went up on a hill???
IAC assured us that no mountains or tall hills existed pre-Deluge, so really there was NO WHERE for the land animals/humans to go.
If we are to assume his theory as true, the ocean waters would have somehow started to rise from an unknown water source and would have rapidly transgressed up onto the land. Without any large hills or mountains, the land animals and humans would have had no where to go. They would have drowned immediately as the waters rose high above them and would have sunk to the bottom.
Then, as the waters regressed off the continent, the sediment would have cementized them into the sediment with all the other creatures. Yet we see nothing of the sort in the fossil record. No modern human fossils are ever found alongside dinos, ancient marine creatures, etc., proving that IAC's theory is way off base, and is a fairy tale.
Therefore, the fact that 95 (not 99) percent of the fossils are marine creatures proves Progressive Evolution, not a Deluge which would have sedimentized millions of humans alongside dinos or other extinct, ancient creatures.
And get this, since we found dino fossils by the hundreds all over the world, it forces IAC to create even more lies. IAC is forced to admit that hundreds of Dinosaur "syngameons" must have been taken on the Ark with Noah since, well, the existence of their many syngameons has been proven by the fossil record.
So let's say Noah took 200 dinosaur syngameons on the ark with him. Where the hell are the dinosaurs now? LOL. You are telling me that the T-Rex's became extinct over cows or domestic cats!!! This is absurd. Veliciraptors couldn't survive in an eviroment of fresh prey everywhere which couldn't challenge it???
A dino could tear apart any mammal existing today. There is no reason to believe that they simply "went extinct" 100 years after leaving the ark.
LOL, I could see it now. Coyotes taking down a pack of velociraptors.
"About 95% of fossilized creatures are marine animals: clams, snails, corals, fish, etc. These water creatures are found throughout the sedimentary rocks on the continents. Mostly water creatures in the rocks on the continents? How can this be? The water must have been up on the continents, no way around it."
Then, when we tore him a new one on this site he had to up the anty:
"As I said in the rest of the post which you partially cited, they escaped uphill for awhile, then floated and bloated and decomposed, no fossils, this is what happened to most of the animals, and is why 99% of fossils are marine creatures."
Hmmmmm. 95% went magically to 99% when his theory was being challenged. All this proves is how IAC resorts to making up facts when his theory is put under a microscope.
This, in fact, is one of the weakest points of his theory. He states that the dinosaurs and millions of humans are found in only 5% of sedimentary rock because they went up on a hill???
IAC assured us that no mountains or tall hills existed pre-Deluge, so really there was NO WHERE for the land animals/humans to go.
If we are to assume his theory as true, the ocean waters would have somehow started to rise from an unknown water source and would have rapidly transgressed up onto the land. Without any large hills or mountains, the land animals and humans would have had no where to go. They would have drowned immediately as the waters rose high above them and would have sunk to the bottom.
Then, as the waters regressed off the continent, the sediment would have cementized them into the sediment with all the other creatures. Yet we see nothing of the sort in the fossil record. No modern human fossils are ever found alongside dinos, ancient marine creatures, etc., proving that IAC's theory is way off base, and is a fairy tale.
Therefore, the fact that 95 (not 99) percent of the fossils are marine creatures proves Progressive Evolution, not a Deluge which would have sedimentized millions of humans alongside dinos or other extinct, ancient creatures.
And get this, since we found dino fossils by the hundreds all over the world, it forces IAC to create even more lies. IAC is forced to admit that hundreds of Dinosaur "syngameons" must have been taken on the Ark with Noah since, well, the existence of their many syngameons has been proven by the fossil record.
So let's say Noah took 200 dinosaur syngameons on the ark with him. Where the hell are the dinosaurs now? LOL. You are telling me that the T-Rex's became extinct over cows or domestic cats!!! This is absurd. Veliciraptors couldn't survive in an eviroment of fresh prey everywhere which couldn't challenge it???
A dino could tear apart any mammal existing today. There is no reason to believe that they simply "went extinct" 100 years after leaving the ark.
LOL, I could see it now. Coyotes taking down a pack of velociraptors.
Last edited:
IAC,
You had no answer to my question of what the source of the Flood waters was, and I'm pretty sure I won't be getting an answer anytime soon.
Let me pose another question to you:
When the waters receded, where did the waters go? LOL. Where did they recede to??? (Note: Evaporation is not an argument for obvious reasons.)
You had no answer to my question of what the source of the Flood waters was, and I'm pretty sure I won't be getting an answer anytime soon.
Let me pose another question to you:
When the waters receded, where did the waters go? LOL. Where did they recede to??? (Note: Evaporation is not an argument for obvious reasons.)
Christians messed it up, big time. According to Islamic scriptures that flood was a regional flood and Noah only had regional animals in his Ark, and for a very limited time, he landed on the shores sooner than months or years.
Christans on the other side messed up the whole thing, they called it a global flood, since the books of bible were written in a very long period and most of the writers had no historical data to back their claims up, they just added whatever made sense in their heads.
Christans on the other side messed up the whole thing, they called it a global flood, since the books of bible were written in a very long period and most of the writers had no historical data to back their claims up, they just added whatever made sense in their heads.
Gen 8:10-11
10 And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark. 11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.
NKJV
A freshly plucked olive leaf. Hmmmmmmm. IAC argues that the entire world was covered by miles of sediment which undoubtedly covered any vegetation that previoulsy existed and killed of ALL VEGETATATION ON THE PLANET.
The herbivores on the ark would have nothing to eat, and would have died very quickly. Not to mention the carnivores (T-REX, Lion, Bear, etc.) would have devoured all of the herbivores in existence immediately upon leaving the ark (what else was there to eat?)
How is it that super predators like the T-Rex went extinct immediately after leaving the ark? Did they have trouble facing off against a coyote? LOL.
This is why Noah would have had to bring way more than 40,000 animals on board, to feed the carnivores.
10 And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark. 11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.
NKJV
A freshly plucked olive leaf. Hmmmmmmm. IAC argues that the entire world was covered by miles of sediment which undoubtedly covered any vegetation that previoulsy existed and killed of ALL VEGETATATION ON THE PLANET.
The herbivores on the ark would have nothing to eat, and would have died very quickly. Not to mention the carnivores (T-REX, Lion, Bear, etc.) would have devoured all of the herbivores in existence immediately upon leaving the ark (what else was there to eat?)
How is it that super predators like the T-Rex went extinct immediately after leaving the ark? Did they have trouble facing off against a coyote? LOL.
This is why Noah would have had to bring way more than 40,000 animals on board, to feed the carnivores.
NDS...I think you've done a marvelous job defending evolution. I can remember a post I made in another thread months ago where I thought IAC actually didn't believe a single word he writes but enjoys the notoriety and popularity, albeit seemingly negative. I think you've pretty much laid waste to his flimsy arguments and if I was to declare a winner then you'd be it. Keep it going.
Funny how IAC calls me "Not Doing Science" when he is the one supporting fairy tales which claim that "all the young, newborn animals joyfully trotted to the ark to Noah from all over the world, even from thousands of miles away. God simply told the animals to go there in a dream." If that isn't a fairy tale, I'm really not sure what is.
Another problem with the syngameon theory:
According to IAC's theory, 20,000 syngameons can turn into 10 millions species magically within about 500 years. After 500 years, there can be no more cross breeding since it simply doesn't work anymore. They are all "cross breeded" out and can't produce any more fertile offspring.
This means that during the first 500 years, the rate of new species creation would be about 20,000 new species a year. Amazing, isn't it? LOL.
After that 500 years though, suddenly the rate drops down to about maybe 300 new species a year. Incredible. The animals have exhausted their ability to produce new species. No more genetic loss can occur.
So here's the big problem with this idea:
According to the Young Earth Model the flood happened 2000 years after the original creation. All the "syngameons" would have been reduced to only their specific "species" within 500-1000 years, meaning "NO HYPER MUTT ANIMALS COULD HAVE EXISTED. ONLY SPECIFIC BREEDS WOULD HAVE EXISTED."
Consequently, this means that much more than 40,000 animals would have been needed on the ark to produce the variation in species which we see today.
Another problem with the syngameon theory:
According to IAC's theory, 20,000 syngameons can turn into 10 millions species magically within about 500 years. After 500 years, there can be no more cross breeding since it simply doesn't work anymore. They are all "cross breeded" out and can't produce any more fertile offspring.
This means that during the first 500 years, the rate of new species creation would be about 20,000 new species a year. Amazing, isn't it? LOL.
After that 500 years though, suddenly the rate drops down to about maybe 300 new species a year. Incredible. The animals have exhausted their ability to produce new species. No more genetic loss can occur.
So here's the big problem with this idea:
According to the Young Earth Model the flood happened 2000 years after the original creation. All the "syngameons" would have been reduced to only their specific "species" within 500-1000 years, meaning "NO HYPER MUTT ANIMALS COULD HAVE EXISTED. ONLY SPECIFIC BREEDS WOULD HAVE EXISTED."
Consequently, this means that much more than 40,000 animals would have been needed on the ark to produce the variation in species which we see today.
As I said, I don't think IAC truly believes what he preaches. Ironically, what he is doing is gaining a better understanding of evolution by being ignorant. Maybe someone should look at that as a viable teaching strategy.
I was reading the Darwin Awards the other nite and there was a short essay by science author Stephen Darksyde and he was talking about Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV) as being proof of chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago. Why it was in there I don't know. I tried to follow it and I understood some of it but I wonder if you ever heard of it? He mentioned that ERV's are the scourge of creationists. Do you know enough about ERV to elaborate on it?
I was reading the Darwin Awards the other nite and there was a short essay by science author Stephen Darksyde and he was talking about Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV) as being proof of chimps and humans sharing a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago. Why it was in there I don't know. I tried to follow it and I understood some of it but I wonder if you ever heard of it? He mentioned that ERV's are the scourge of creationists. Do you know enough about ERV to elaborate on it?
PsychoticEpisode, thanks for the earlier response. It's just amazing how clear it is that the Young Earth Theory cannot be possible, and people like IAC continue to deny the self-evident.
Honestly, I haven't heard of any of the things you mentioned however it sounds very interesting and I'm glad you posted it. It seems we are at that point in knowledge where technology is beginning to develop to a point where evolution can be directly observed.
Honestly, I haven't heard of any of the things you mentioned however it sounds very interesting and I'm glad you posted it. It seems we are at that point in knowledge where technology is beginning to develop to a point where evolution can be directly observed.