Proof the Bible is God's Word

[SnakeLord]

Two of every kind is hardly "all".

Doing some research i put the figure at 97,500 animals on the ark IF you only include mammals and birds. That figure ignores all reptiles, all amphibians, all insects etc...

Add the food, the cages needed to keep lions away from chimpanzees etc.....

Add particular needed habitats such as an iceberg for the polar bears and penguins

Add the fact that he was to take 7 of all clean animals, (i havent worked out every single 'clean' animal yet...

What you're left with is a complete joke. It's an impossiblity that some simpletons give credence to.

NO is the answer.

Don't let your preconceptions shape your understanding.

I don't think it's so much 'preconception' as it is 'what the fucking book says'. The simple fact here is it's an impossibility, didn't happen and as such is blatantly false. Going by the fact that this story is a complete pile of horse shite what makes anyone think the rest of the bible is any more 'truthful'? When it says 'jesus ressed from the dead', maybe they didn't mean that but just felt like making up a load of bollocks as seen in the noah story.

Sure, you could say "not all of the animals that exist today existed then", but that would be to accept evolution, which i've noticed in other threads, you don't.

As one final thing: He would have also had to have taken along all the daisy's and dandelions and other land based flowers, they don't cope too well under water. Not to mention all the trees.

The fact that this story is so obviously bogus is of paramount importance. It shows the bible for what it really is. Shite.

 

[Jenyar]

Sure, you could say "not all of the animals that exist today existed then", but that would be to accept evolution, which i've noticed in other threads, you don't.

Of course I accept evolution. GodLied had a field day with it. It's a fact that life adapts. But there is no reason to believe that all species evolved out of a single cell, and that the single cell "evolved" from dead rock. To believe that is a leap of faith, necessary to hold a theory, which does not constitute fact.

All plants have seeds, and seeds can remain dormant underwater for quite a while.

Interestingly, the more species implicated in evolution from a single "kind", the more likely Noah's story becomes.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Jenyar
You probably overestimate how many animals had to be taken on board. And this "homemade boat", by the Biblical measurements, had a volume of 43500 cubic m, or "the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep". (answersingenesis.com)

Research also shows that inbreeding is extremely bad.

Originally posted by Jenyar


Interestingly, the more species implicated in evolution from a single "kind", the more likely Noah's story becomes.

you made a typo. You meant to say unlikely, since evolution started before there were people to make arks.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
Research also shows that inbreeding is extremely bad.

Then with what did the first forms of life breed with?

you made a typo. You meant to say unlikely, since evolution started before there were people to make arks.

And reached the present diversity almost immediately? I don't think so.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Jenyar
Then with what did the first forms of life breed with?

They bred with each other of course. But you assume that the characteristics of early life should be the same as the characteristics of modern multicellular life, which is completely dependent on sex (with the notable exception).
You might also be aware that the human species is a quite young species. It seems hardly possible that all the other species evolved after humans came about and saved a few animals on an ark. You may think that in your confused mind, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Look at the fossile record. There is no sign of a global flooding. There is definite evidence of an ordered appareance of evolutionary lineages.

Before you ask for the evidence. It is not in the bible (sorry). You go to the library, start reading some general books. Then some specialized books, and maybe then search pubmed, ISIS or another search engine for the current literature. I know it takes time, but I had to do it too.

Originally posted by Jenyar

And reached the present diversity almost immediately? I don't think so.

your opinion is unlikely to hold much weight against modern scientific knowledge, even despite the fact that you may think so yourself.

The question is even if there is more diversity now than in earlier times. I assume it is one of your assumptions again.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Originally posted by Jenyar
And reached the present diversity almost immediately? I don't think so.

It reached the present day diversity before humans showed up, which is enough to pretty much prove noahs ark could not have happened. There is no way anyone could gather every species on earth and there is no boat that could possibly be made that could hold every species on earth.
Thats all there is to it.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
They bred with each other of course. But you assume that the characteristics of early life should be the same as the characteristics of modern multicellular life, which is completely dependent on sex (with the notable exception).
You might also be aware that the human species is a quite young species. It seems hardly possible that all the other species evolved after humans came about and saved a few animals on an ark. You may think that in your confused mind, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Look at the fossile record. There is no sign of a global flooding. There is definite evidence of an ordered appareance of evolutionary lineages.

You assume the characteristics are irreversably different. Incest is even promoted by breeders. If it is always detrimental, then why is that? PS. Do reptiles even distinuish between immediate family?

The question is even if there is more diversity now than in earlier times. I assume it is one of your assumptions again.

Well, if evolution is as strong as you hold it to be - able to develop new species from old ones - then at some stage there must have been less species. And at some stage all species would have had to interbreed to create more of the same species, don't you think?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Jenyar
You assume the characteristics are irreversably different. Incest is even promoted by breeders. If it is always detrimental, then why is that? PS. Do reptiles even distinuish between immediate family?

They tracked the bird population on a small island. They could therefore trace who is who, and who reproduced with whom. After a severe winter they checked wich animals had died. It were all the inbred ones.
Pets do not have a very hard live. There is no selective pressure whatsover except the fancy of the breeder.
Yes, many species can distinguish between relatives and non-relatives. No, we don't always know why.

Originally posted by Jenyar

Well, if evolution is as strong as you hold it to be - able to develop new species from old ones - then at some stage there must have been less species. And at some stage all species would have had to interbreed to create more of the same species, don't you think?

no, i don't think so. We are talking about the very early event. The creation of unicellular life. After that there was probably a very quick radiation. Until a threshold was reached. Maybe the genetic program could not sustain the evolution of multicellular organisms. At one point some unicellular organisms acquired the genetic tools for dealing with multicellular life. There was a quick radiation of species again. In fact during the ealry cambrian there were actually more phyla than exist now. This explosion of life happened more than 500 million years before the first human arrived. Since then there has actually been a steady decrease in the diversity of 'bauplane'. And if we look at the amount of species I think that the judge is not entirely out yet, but there actually doesn't seem to be an increase in the amount of species, rather a switch in distribution along the phylogenetic tree.

now you say something informative instead of your opinion please.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
They tracked the bird population on a small island. They could therefore trace who is who, and who reproduced with whom. After a severe winter they checked wich animals had died. It were all the inbred ones.
Pets do not have a very hard live. There is no selective pressure whatsover except the fancy of the breeder.
Yes, many species can distinguish between relatives and non-relatives. No, we don't always know why.

We're not talking about any selective pressures, we're talking about whether the consequences of interbreeding are necessarily fatal. If you ask a zoo what they need to save an almost extinct species, they will probably tell you they need one male and one female able and willing to breed. If the gene pool is pure and diverse enough, there won't be problems with mutations or lethal genes.

no, i don't think so. We are talking about the very early event. The creation of unicellular life. After that there was probably a very quick radiation. Until a threshold was reached. Maybe the genetic program could not sustain the evolution of multicellular organisms. At one point some unicellular organisms acquired the genetic tools for dealing with multicellular life. There was a quick radiation of species again. In fact during the ealry cambrian there were actually more phyla than exist now. This explosion of life happened more than 500 million years before the first human arrived. Since then there has actually been a steady decrease in the diversity of 'bauplane'. And if we look at the amount of species I think that the judge is not entirely out yet, but there actually doesn't seem to be an increase in the amount of species, rather a switch in distribution along the phylogenetic tree.

now you say something informative instead of your opinion please.

Unless you cite sources I will treat your posts as opinion and speculation - to which I am also entitled. I am perfectly aware my points are opinion, since I am hardly a geneticist, but if I never voice them nobody will be able to show me where I'm wrong, will they? Until then, I'm free to point out when the problems you point out seem baseless, and you are free to provide foundations for them.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Jenyar
We're not talking about any selective pressures, we're talking about whether the consequences of interbreeding are necessarily fatal. If you ask a zoo what they need to save an almost extinct species, they will probably tell you they need one male and one female able and willing to breed. If the gene pool is pure and diverse enough, there won't be problems with mutations or lethal genes.

nice that you think that.

Originally posted by Jenyar



Unless you cite sources I will treat your posts as opinion and speculation - to which I am also entitled. I am perfectly aware my points are opinion, since I am hardly a geneticist, but if I never voice them nobody will be able to show me where I'm wrong, will they? Until then, I'm free to point out when the problems you point out seem baseless, and you are free to provide foundations for them.

What is your point? That all current scientific theory and data is wrong?

I tried to explain it to you by just talking in general terms based on general knowledge for a biologist. You want me to go into details? I don't think so. First try to stand before you walk.

 

[Jenyar]

Noah is commanded to preserve a reproducing pair of each originally created kind (Gen. 1:20-24); but the biblical term kind is almost certainly not a synonym for species. Since the biblical authors did not have access to the Linnaean classification scheme, we can assume that kind refers to animal groups that are easy to distinguish visually. Kind probably stands for some larger grouping closer to the genus or family, of which canines and felines would be examples. The modern definition of species, on the other hand, is quite narrow, usually connoting a geographically specific population that regularly interbreeds. A broader but more precise definition is a group of animals that is capable of interbreeding, whether they actually do so or not.
- from an article on species preservation

One of the preconditions were that they could interbreed.

By the way, I don't exclude the possibility that the flood account was a local event with global significance. Even if there was only a local flooding of the Bosphorus Strait, and Noah/Utnapshin preserved as many animals as were available to him, it does not affect the implications of the story in any way. The ark is death, the flood is baptism in death, Noah is the righteous man, his family are those shown mercy, and his eventual survival is eternal life. The animals aren't just for fun either. They represent all life on earth.

 

[SnakeLord]

All plants have seeds, and seeds can remain dormant underwater for quite a while.

I don't know how well versed you are on botany, but you'll find some could survive underwater, the majority however could not. That's a fact.

Interestingly, the more species implicated in evolution from a single "kind", the more likely Noah's story becomes.

No, it's impossible.

I can just imagine poor old Noah, after travelling all the way to the polar regions to get a couple of polar bears, walruses and penguins:

Noah: *huff puff* urggg get on the boat ffs you stupid polar bear
Polar bear: *growl*

Scene ends up looking like something from Kill Bill.

Then with what did the first forms of life breed with?

There's species that are both sexes, species that can change sex, species, (certain stick insects), that don't even need a male counterpart, they just fertilize themselves. Just because you're required to lie on someone and grind away, doesn't mean everything else needs to.

And reached the present diversity almost immediately? I don't think so.

Sorry but i dont think the word "immediately" belongs here.

it does not affect the implications of the story in any way.

Of course it does. It shows the story is a fabrication, a work of fiction, a fantasy.

Of course the Ziusudra version was much better. Ziusudra is on a barge going to market with some cows and goats. The Euphrates blows its banks and he floats off down the Euphrates and into the Persian Gulf. From that you can try and get some historical value, but to put any trust into the Noah joke is ridiculous. It also lowers any validity the rest of the bible might have had. Who are you to say the rest of the bible isn't as falsely inflated as that story?

What historians have found is that the Noah story is quite clearly a rip off of the earlier Sumerian/Akkadian stories, but has been beefed up into something quite simply stupid.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Flores
The Quran states:
7:158. Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He that giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, .the Unlettered Prophet , who believeth in Allah and His Words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided."


And here is the verse from the bible:
'And the Book is delivered to him that is not learned' (Isaiah 29:12).

Amy more questions about Prophet Muhammed being illiterateas

Thanks Flores, I've asked that question so many times without an answer. I think that the first quote is satisfactory. I also think P_S answer "It is in the Sunnah" is fine as well. Although I do wonder why this person's family didn't teach their child to read or write. Stranger things have happened.

I did have a question. In your second quote - from the Bible - what book is it refering to if not the Quran? Let me ask that another way - do you know what the Christian answer is to this quote? The Bible itself?

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Jenyar
If such a flood and ark really happened, it's hardly a myth - regardless of the language used to describe it.

And so:

If such a flood and ark didn’t really happened, it's a myth - regardless of the language used to describe it.

You didn’t answer my other questions:

1) What did the animals eat during and after the 40d “flood”

2) If global, then how did the marsupials get to Australia? Did they all just like to hang together

Basically it breaks down like such.
1) There is no evidence in the geological record of a global flood.
2) It is impossible to make an ark to the size and dimensions in the Bible that could carry all of the animals in the world.
3) There’s still the question of what did the animals eat?
4) Why are the animals distribution exactly as a natural non-Deity (say evolution and normal tectonic activity) would predict? That is: why are marsupials in Australia. Why does New Zealand have species of plants only found in Chili (NZ was last a part of Chili so this would make perfect sense – 10s of millions of years BEFORE Noah) etcetera . . .

Sure a local flood may have occurred. Did it have world wide implications? There’s no evidence to suggest that was so. And frankly why would a local flood affect peoples in Hawaii, China, Americas, Easter Island, Aboriginal Australians? It wouldn’t.

As I see it that leaves you with a few conclusions.

1) God flooded the world and if there is no evidence then it’s just another of gods funny little faith tests he likes to pass out at the end of class or the devil is tricking people by changing the entire global geological record as well as animal distribution In short – god did it. This is no different than saying Aliens came to earth, teleported two of every kind into the mother ship, flooded the earth, and then teleported them back in their proper places. That is: it’s all made up and you can not expect a reasonable minded person to believe this crap.

2) There was a local flood and that got exaggerated as it was turned into a myth.

This second one can take two forms

A) It was a local flood that god made happen and any question like “what did the animals eat” is answered by: god did it. God gave them food. God made sure the carnivores didn’t eat the herbivores. Etcetera. (This takes the form of the alien spoof from above).

B) There was a local flood that nature made happen and it was exaggerated into a grand epic myth not so different from what ALMOST ALL cultures have in their myth repertoire and is simply a made up story.

Now – of the above, which conclusion did you expect a reasonable minded person would arrive at? Come on.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Jenyar
One of the preconditions were that they could interbreed.

By the way, I don't exclude the possibility that the flood account was a local event with global significance. Even if there was only a local flooding of the Bosphorus Strait, and Noah/Utnapshin preserved as many animals as were available to him, it does not affect the implications of the story in any way. The ark is death, the flood is baptism in death, Noah is the righteous man, his family are those shown mercy, and his eventual survival is eternal life. The animals aren't just for fun either. They represent all life on earth.

Then the bible is not scientifically accurate; which was the whole point of the discussion.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
Then the bible is not scientifically accurate; which was the whole point of the discussion.

And my point is that scientific accuracy is not the only way to convey truth. If the end is to recreate an objective and inhuman reality, science is the way to go. But if the end is to recreate a humanly valid expression of experience and truth regarding the same facts, different methods are necessary - and I don't mean lies, which you apparently think is the first thing a righteous person would resort to.

As your PS reads, "You can make figures do whatever you want" Scientific accuracy is not always the most truthful representation of the truth. It might be the most basic and irreducable form of reality, but it's not necessarily the whole truth. Especially not if the premise of the Bible - that God exists - is true.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Jenyar
And my point is that scientific accuracy is not the only way to convey truth. If the end is to recreate an objective and inhuman reality, science is the way to go. But if the end is to recreate a humanly valid expression of experience and truth regarding the same facts, different methods are necessary - and I don't mean lies, which you apparently think is the first thing a righteous person would resort to.

As your PS reads, "You can make figures do whatever you want" Scientific accuracy is not always the most truthful representation of the truth. It might be the most basic and irreducable form of reality, but it's not necessarily the whole truth. Especially not if the premise of the Bible - that God exists - is true.

the fact that science is not always right, doesn't make the bible scientifically accurate.

and as for the quote, it is a quote from a fictional book.

Ned was a fictional harpoonist, talking to a fictional professor, whose reply was:
"Perhaps in business, Ned, but not in mathematics."

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
the fact that science is not always right, doesn't make the bible scientifically accurate.

The fact that the Bible is not scientifically accurate, does not make it false...

Perhaps in science, Ned, but not in life.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Jenyar
The fact that the Bible is not scientifically accurate, does not make it false...

the claim was that the bible is scientifically accurate, which would give it more authority (according to the original poster). Apperently the bible is not scientifically accurate and thereforewe could postulate that the probability that the bible is false is increased.

Is this a decent summary of the conclusion we have reached so far, or am I missing something?

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
the claim was that the bible is scientifically accurate, which would give it more authority (according to the original poster). Apperently the bible is not scientifically accurate and thereforewe could postulate that the probability that the bible is false is increased.

Is this a decent summary of the conclusion we have reached so far, or am I missing something?

That's one possible conclusion to such a narrow hypothesis. People like to draw on scientific information to support the Bible, Quran, or any claim for that matter. And it's natural, since science represents the most "objective", commonly verifiable reality we have at our disposal. But in many cases it just feeds the monster of scientific conceit.

People have been disappointed that neither God nor actual history could be proved or corroborated by scientific means at least since the beginning of the Enlightenment.

If you applied the criteria to the present - that only scientific accuracy lends credibility to any thought we produce - we are possibly all living in an inaccurate, incredible fantasy world in relation to future scientific discoveries or insight. From a metaphysical viewpoint that might even be true - but not according to the science of today...

I see no reason that our relative ignorance of the future makes our present experience any less "true" or valid. We might be erroneously calling the earth a sphere, for instance, when that is really only the spatial manifestation of another form not yet perceived. But that doesn't make all our observations about the sphere any less true.

Therefore I suggest another preliminary conclusion, based on the observation that scientific accuracy is always lacking in retrospect - that the presence or lack of such accuracy cannot support or damage a case that does not rely on objective measurement for its authority.